Written by Steve Savage
From what I read on various blogs and comment streams, there is way too much angst out there about GMO crops. Too much angst because every significant panel of scientists that has reviewed this technology has concluded that it is as safe as any other domesticated food crop. Too much angst because the reality is that only a small number of crop species will ever be genetically engineered for commercial use. There are four main reasons why this is the case:
1. Brand protectionism
2. Unfavorable economics
3. Other ways to achieve the same goals, and
4. Anti-GMO activism
1. Brand Protectionism
For most crops, somewhere along the chain of commerce from the farmer to the consumer, there is a step where there is considerable “concentration.” This means that much of the market is in the hands of one or a few players. A classic case is potatoes. In the US, McDonalds corporation is such a dominant buyer of frozen fries, it was able to stop the commercial deployment of biotech potatoes with three phone calls. Unlike standard potatoes, the GMO potatoes in question are not planted into a supply of insecticide sufficient to be picked up by the roots for 60 days because they make their own, super-safe and specific “pesticide” in their leaves (Bt). The GMO potatoes also don’t need to be sprayed for aphids close to harvest because they are resistant to the virus those aphids spread. The potato growers were extremely excited about the technology, but purely for the sake of brand protection, McDonalds was able to deprive the entire industry of this advance. Potatoes are still a perfectly safe food. It could just be easier on the growers.
There are other cases of this sort of brand-protection power. The major frozen food companies and grocery retailers have been able to block most use of “Bt Sweet Corn” which could save farmers 8-10 insecticide sprays/season. Frito-Lay blocked the use of GMO, Bt white corn for corn chips even though that technology greatly reduces the risk of contamination with the mycotoxin, Fumonisin, which has been linked to neural tube defects in humans.
Brands are very valuable things and are protected fiercely. Activists like Greenpeace know this well, and they are able to use the threat of protest to turn that business instinct into decisions that are counter-productive for farmers and consumers alike.
2. Unfavorable Economics
Genetically engineering a crop is not that costly, but doing all the work necessary for the regulators is very expensive. Unless the crop in question is very large, very valuable or both, it will just never “pencil” to make the R&D investment, particularly if there is any marketing risk. I was once on a team that helped a major banana company and a biotech company think-through whether they should spend the money to develop a disease resistant banana. In Central America, it is necessary to spray this crop from the air almost every week to control a disease called Black Sigatoka. Bananas are a large, global crop so I was certain that the “business case” would be attractive. To everyone’s surprise, when we did the math, it came out as a poor investment! The problem is that banana plantations only get re-planted about every 20 years, so even if the new technology was available, only a small area would be planted each year. Saving >50 aerial sprays wasn’t enough to cover registration costs once the time-value-of-money is factored in.
So no minor crop and almost no perennial crop is ever going to become GMO unless the growers band together to make the investment. A coffee expert explained this to the global Specialty Coffee Association last year and suggested that they contemplate what it means that coffee will never be GMO. With the issues of climate change and declining labor availability, that entire industry is at risk.
3. Other Ways to Achieve the Same Goals
There has been a tremendous, public/private, global investment in biotechnology, far beyond that for the few crops that have been modified. That has led to the development of many new methods to alter the genes of plants etc. that don’t involve the introduction of any “foreign DNA.” Most of the crops that fit category 2 above will likely be improved using these alternatives (Marker Assisted Selection, Directed Mutagenesis, Induced Polyploidy…). These improvements will not involve expensive regulatory barriers, and so far, don’t draw the ire of activists. (With the exception of one attack on “Hidden GMO” sunflowers that were generated by mutagenesis.)
4. Anti-GMO Activism
Plant genetic engineering has been the most carefully thought-through new technology introduction in history. I remember attending major scientific conferences on the safety and environmental questions at least 10 years before the first commercial seeds were planted. We talked through everything with ecologists, botanists, sociologists, economists, molecular geneticists, food industry experts. But none of this influences the “environmental” groups who have seized on this issue to raise funds and draw attention. The activist’s task is made easier because molecular genetics is a fast-moving science that few consumers understand. The press has also been unwilling to take the time to understand this to the extent that journalistic standards would require and so many have not helped to counteract the fear-mongering. This is the only way I can explain some activist-driven rejections.
My all-time-most-read blog post was titled, “A Sad Day For Wine. A Sad Day For Science.” There is a virus called Grapevine Fanleaf Virus that is spread by a nematode (Xiphenema index). If the two ever infest a given vineyard site, good quality wine can never be produced there again because the vines will soon decline and die. That means that there are many wonderful vineyards around the world that have the an excellent “terrior” (something the French appreciate so much), but that site can no longer produce good wine. Grapes are grown on “rootstocks” and Cornell University had modified a rootstock to be resistant to the virus. This was an elegant solution to the Grape Fanleaf Virus problem because the top part of the vine is unchanged and only one kind of rootstock has to be developed. Last fall an experimental block of this new technology was ripped out of the ground by activists who believed they were saving the French wine industry from “genetic contamination.” That fear is 100% irrational – it is a rootstock under the ground that never flowers. Besides, grapes are not grown from seeds anyway. Different varieties of wine grapes are planted side-by-side all the time with no ill effects!
Is This Good Or Bad-Consider the Case of Wheat
So for a variety of reasons (some economic, some logical, some irrational, some selfish), very few additional crops will ever be GMO. That is not to say GMO is a small contribution to the food supply. Corn, Soy, Cotton, Canola, Sugarbeets and Alfalfa are GMO and cover hundreds of millions of acres and find their way into many processed foods, meat and milk. Still, I will continue to argue that GMO crops can be beneficial. The world will survive without a bit more excellent wine (very few vineyards in California, Chile, Argentina or Australia are contaminated!), but the other crop where activist-generated-fear has “won” by eliciting Brand Protectionism is – wheat, the second largest food crop on earth. By 2004, Greenpeace was able to generate enough fear in Europe to get major millers and bakers to threaten not to purchase North American wheat if any became GMO. The Canadian Wheat Board blinked, and two, nearly commercial wheat traits, were stopped in their tracks. One kind of GMO wheat would have been easier to farm with no-till methods and easier to keep pure for specialty uses. The other GMO wheat would have reduced disease-related yield losses as well as mycotoxin contamination.
It is far easier to stir up fear than it is to educate the public. There was an excellent article by Justin Gillis in the New York Times on 6/4/11 titled, “A Warming Planet Struggles to Feed Itself.” Much of the article is about how wheat production is failing to increase sufficiently to meet rising global demand. GM technology is not the full answer to this challenge by any means, but the fact that we are not including GM in the wheat improvement toolbox is a clear-cut “bad thing” in my book.
This post originally appeared on Sustainablog on 6/8/11.
You are welcome to comment here or to email me at applied.mythology@gmail.com. My website is Applied Mythology. Image of Edvard Munch’s 1893 painting, ”The Scream” from oddsock. French Fry image by Sun Dazed. Alsatian vineyard image near Colmar, France from Andreea.
Written by Guest Expert
Steve Savage has worked with various aspects of agricultural technology for more than 35 years. He has a PhD in plant pathology and his varied career included Colorado State University, DuPont, and the bio-control start-up, Mycogen. He is an independent consultant working with a wide variety of clients on topics including biological control, biotechnology, crop protection chemicals, and more. Steve writes and speaks on food and agriculture topics (Applied Mythology blog) and does a bi-weekly podcast called POPAgriculture for the CropLife Foundation.
I guess you didn’t see this:
http://redgreenandblue.org/2011/06/08/its-official-monsantos-roundup-herbicide-causes-birth-defects/
No birth defects. Round up is very common in gardening but no birth defects have been reported. Gardeners and farmers have no higher levels in birth defects or cancer.
Patios in Germany are a kind of round up soaked -not mine.
“Official” for the crowd of anti-GM activists it seems.
How to starve a planet?
The silent spring idee did not work we are growing older and healthier Get the idea around that the evil of the conditio humana is CO2 with the following consequences-
:
1. Instead food farm energy plants. The ETOC lobby of the Americas and the Biogas lobby in Europe salute David Hanson of NASA.
2.Regulate farming intensly in favour of preservation. So may be that migratory bird devastete crops or watermanagment for amphibias makes farming a pain.
3.Apart from preservation get more trees planted which follows the infantile perception the oxygen comes from the terrestial trees that even agglomerate the CO2
4. Burry fertile farmland under solar panels, wind turbines or hundred feet of water for the purpose of power production.
5. Before shortage of farmland occurs invest in farmland to get a good bargain. Big Investment Companies but also power companies are investing franticly in farmland. Ask Ted Turner of CNN who bouught land the size of a small state in Europe.
Right on! The anti-GMO activism has surely led to a poorer world sans all these healthier alternatives and the missed opportunities.
ok. I don’t care what panels of scientists say. They are not us. They are not obliged to protect our lives. They may not live long enough to see the terrible effects showing on their offsprings. Or some people enjoy the stocks of Monsanto. Anyway, I don’t care arguing with you whether GMO are safe or not.
I want the GMO to be labelled! Why you scientists fear labeling them? Why?!!!!!
Everyone is obliged to protect other peoples lives, if the their-own actions can cause harm. Scientists especially take care to ensure lives are saved by positive actions , clarification of facts, and avoidance of unsafe actions.
There are many examples of harm caused by organisations who lobby against scientific work that does good, or who unintentionally advocate policies that are intended to do good but actually do great harm. One example is vitamin A enriched rice which is delayed years, thanks mainly to Greenpeace. Another is anti-vaccine activism that is causing a recent jump in measles disease that can cause permanent brain damage (SASPE). The Anti-vaccine nonsense is fully explained by a new book by Seth Mnookin called the Panic Virus. Both anti-science groups behave in similar harmful ways but both ani-science movements are convinced they are themselves morally good.
So when you say Joanne “Oh, I don’t care about what panels of scientists say”, think about the harm your position does and who is affected– mainly poor people. Think carefully about the harm you might yourself do if you knowingly spread the Panic Virus.
What harm I do to others? I don’t care. Yes, I have the right to not to care because I don’t trust scientists. This is my personal opinion. I don’t ask people to not to care. I don’t say scientists are right by saying GMOs are safe. I just say I don’t believe scientists. I don’t force people to eat GMOs or not to eat GMOs. I don’t argue GMOs are safe or not. Because I think if they are labelled, I would have the chance to vote by my money.
We have the right to choose what to eat. Without labelling, now we are forced to eat GMOs! Does that do harm? That harms a lot to people.
Scientists are not us, what a strange thing to say. Scientists are just people like anyone else. There isn’t some line drawn between those who do science and everyone else, ‘scientist’ isn’t some innate class of person, they are just those who
As for labeling, there is no mandaroty labeling for the same reason many things are not labeled. There is no mandatory labeling for kosher or halal food, crops grown from tissue culture, crops who’s chromosomes have been doubled with colchicine, crops developed with the use of mutagens, or any number of things. Looking at blue berries, black berries, and raspberries, you never see the variety name on the little carton. I’d personally like to know what variety I’m eating. Why isn’t that labeled? Well, for the same reason GMOs aren’t labeled. If something presents a potential danger, it should be labeled, for example, the presence of peanuts or hydrogenated oils (speaking of which, anyone else ever wonder why there is so little backlash over the oils that will hurt you but so much over the GMOs that won’t?). If however there is no known danger I don’t see any sort of ethical or legal argument supporting mandatory labeling. And really, that something is GMO, what does that really say? There are different gene insertion methods, different genes, different effects…you could have two GMO plants that have nothing in common besides the fact that they’re considered GMO. How is a GMO Arctic apple in any way like a GMO Bt corn? Even if GMOs were labeled, such a label would not, could not, do anything to inform, it would merely alarm, and I think everyone knows that. Thanks to the blatant lies of Greenpeace, organic groups, flying dance teachers, and other unscientific fearmongers, the only thing labeling would really do is scare people. You can’t say it would inform anyone of what is GMO because that is already easy to learn knowledge: corn, cotton, canola, soybean, papaya from Hawaii, some straight neck summer squash/zucchini, and soon alfalfa & sugarbeet. If it has them in it, it’s a safe bet the food is GM. I never understood the labeling thing; if you already know, what more do you want, unless what you want is for others to see the label and make the assumption that it signifies danger. And that just doesn’t seem right.
One way or another, every human is a scientist. Who can possibly spend a day without trying something to see if it works or not? Aside from their formal education, professional scientists simply have different habits of thought. They take more care in forming hypotheses and setting up experiments in such a way that biases are forcefully excluded from the result. The rest of us use imagination ‘on the fly’ and hope for the best.
Put on a OC the labeling: Can cause PE =pulonary embolism but without mentioning the odds.
The same thing with labling of GMO when the precautionary principle applies and the oddss are in the range of 1: mill-bill.
Risk aversion is psychology and can lead to overreaction
I looked at “Alex’s” article, and at the comments there.
We’re in trouble. Ignorance, catastrophization and one-upmanship in anti-(Monsanto, capitalism, science, scientists, US government, Vast International Conspiracy) fervor are going unchallenged by rationality and facts; the Dark Ages are returning. I don’t want to see another Hypatia.
I agree that, “the Dark Ages are returning”. I just want to cry.
OrchidGrowinMan,
‘We’re in trouble’ because of how narratives are handled. Greenpeace gets a pass on anything they say or do, and proponents of agro biotech are so frightened of them and other similar groups that they daren’t say anything about the enemy.
Agro biotech has ceded territory to the activists with nary a skirmish. That bone-headed approach is costing millions in lives and in currency around the world.
The actual problem is gutless technology providers. Maybe they’re trying to look weak so that they won’t look like they’re ‘trying to control the world food supply’.
Won’t work, didn’t work, will never work.
If someone had a monopoly on a necessity like the food supply, the price of food would rise such that it would take half or more of the GDP.
If food did cost that much, there are a lot of alternatives that would become viable.
Monsanto does not control the world’s food supply because it sells nothing to consumers. (Outside of a recent release of Monsanto onions in select markets.)
The giant food manufacturing concerns and grocery chains have all the power, and if they wanted to, they could put Monsanto out of business in a month. They could buy and sell the entire agro biotech industry with less than they spend on advertising.
Which means Monsanto et. al. are playing a very dangerous game by ignoring their sworn enemies. This will become especially true when the biotechs put ‘healthy’ oils on the market which are derived from GM crops.
We all saw what happened to GM potatoes. French fry manufacturers (two of them supply nearly all of North America) and their customers (McDonalds et. al.) forced the GM potatoes off the market.
Don’t be surprised if food manufacturers and grocery stores in North America force GM ‘healthy’ oils off the market. We have a real precedent to judge by, and it’s not encouraging.
Monsanto et al shareholders seeing years of R&D squandered on items rejected by ‘the market’ will not be happy. We’re talking hundreds of millions down the drain. And mostly because the agro biotech industry will not engage its opponents.
If the the GMO fries are much cheaper than the others the consumers will decide in favour of the cheaper price.
The price should be the message and not the healthiness of food. The opposite would be that thers is unhealthy food which does not exist. It is eatable or not.
The toxic dosis of certain herbs and spices can be reached by unsound use. But in these concentrations it wont be a pleasure to eat.
GMO has the wrong message to the people struggling to follow a 5 minutes speech. Cars were bought initianally not beacause of secondary benefits. They were bought to travel and get around. In rural northern Germany there are a lot of horses and its time consuming to travel by horse -a pure recreational thing.
The price of GMO is the point and the fear of the farmers that they could be desperately dependent on Monsanto seeds(kind of conspirational theory)
If the GM seed price is too high, don’t buy them I say. Only use the seeds that provide a net benefit. Strangely, those farmers given the option use them again the next year, year after year. What does that say about benefits of GM seeds to farmers?
The farmer dont know better. They are convinced that Monsanto made GMO to make them buy the same seed and the suitable pesticides. They fear that the crop is not suitable as seed . It is like buying a laser printer where only one toner fits which is not refillable. By the way no farmer i know plants his own seeds.
Farmers do know better – I find it rather bizarre that anyone would state otherwise – farmers are well aware of the market for seed, pesticides, etc – people who have no direct connection to agriculture don’t know better, and people ideologically opposed to the idea of GMOs who do know better are quite happy to lie about the system in order to perpetuate this – but claiming that farmers don’t understandhow the system operates is simply not true in the vast majority of cases.
My posting was misleading. Ideed know farmers very well how the system works. But the propganda was very successfull in the implication GMO means a endless depedency on big pharma. In germany most farmers think the GMo seed does only work for one year it means you may not be able to get seeds out of the crop.
An so another myth is born. Remember the one that started saying that eating GMO potatoes made people susceptible to bird flue? I’m sure there are still people out there who believe that.
You cannot force people to believe something or not. If you say GMOs are safe, why not label them? What is the fear? You say it is hard to label. But how does Monsantoes make money by charging patent fees over their seeds? How they can tell which seeds are their GMO seeds? Easy. It is very easy to label them. Please do not find an excuse to cover up the crime against humanity!
Crime against humanity?. Why not genocide and attributing all illnesses and other menaces for human health to GMO. You do not believe? Look at this chart- If You like come to Germany and destroy GMO crop You will be awrded a medal:
http://www.greenpeace.de/themen/gentechnik/anbau_genpflanzen/artikel/anbaukarte_gen_pflanzen
Joanne,
You would have to see the grain handling system of the US midwest to understand why it would be completely impractical to track and label the corn, soybeans etc. You would substantially increase the cost of all foods to do that. It is much more practical to identify preserve and label the small amount of grain that is not GMO. All of society need not pay for the fears of a few. As for most crops, they never have been and never will be GMO. Chill!
“I don’t care what panels of scientists say. They are not us.”
Joanne, that is a completely bigoted and ignorant comment.
This is my personal opinion. Nothing wrong about it. Why accuse me? Why I have to care the scientists? LoL. Wait a minute. Maybe you misunderstood me. I don’t mean scientists are always correct. That is exactly why I don’t care them. Unfortunately, a lot of people may be fooled by scientists. Those who count on scientists to say the food are safe or not.
Sadly, even I don’t want to eat GMOs, I am forced to eat GMOs since they are NOT labelled. If Monsanto knows how to charge patent fees on GMO seeds, they should have a way to label the crops.
Just that the US government do not label GMOs, they want to force people to eat GMOS. Btw, I do not object you to eat GMOS if you love them or if you hold stocks.
Just please do NOT force me to eat GMOs by not labelling them!!
I am surprised that you guys attack me instead of Monsanto. I, of course, would like those scientists to take care of us. However, they have failed us, at least me. I do NOT believe those scientists. I mean I don’t care. Just mean, I don’t expect them. I don’t mean, that are right. Yes, they would do harm to people who are ignorant of the harm of the GMOs.
What I want is that they should mark up those GMO. As one of you said, most food are still not GMOs. So GMOs are still a minority. GMOs should be labelled!! So people can vote by money.
That is what I mean. Please do NOT get me wrong.
Friends, note that some or most GMOs have built-in pestcide. Scientists, if you love to eat it, please please eat it yourself, feed your family, relatives….. But please do NOT force others to eat. OKay?
Yep, most plants have chemicals that are there to repel pests and herbivores. The allicin in garlic, the tannins in persimmons, the capsaicin in peppers, and plenty of others (anyone have a list of those? That’d be cool). That there is a pesticide in a crop sounds alarming, but that really doesn’t say much. I’m not about to stop eating oranges because they have hesperidin, or stop eating mint because it has menthol, or stop eating black pepper because it has piperine. Just because something has the properties of a pesticide doesn’t mean that it will harm you, and even for those that can hurt you, that it is in sufficient quantity to do so. In the case of GMOs, yes, many do produce their own pesticide, however, this particular protein has been extensively studied, and it is not known to be a danger to humans. You certainty wouldn’t avoid radishes because they contain Allyl isothiocyanate, so unless there is a reason to avoid the specific pesticide (and in the case of the Bt protein produced by GMOs, there is not), it’s kind of a double standard to treat GMOs differently don’t you think?
And you know, no one is forcing anyone to eat anything. If you don’t want GMO food, that’s your call and you’re free to it. I doubt anyone is making you eat GMO food. If I don’t want, for example, rice with the sd-1 gene (not that I have anything against sd-1 of course), I don’t have to eat that rice, but if that gene were very prevalent in cultivated rice, then the onus is on me to to find non-sd-1 rice, and I would certainty not say I am forced to eat sd-1 rice, much like if you want non-GMO whatever, that is on you, not everyone else, and you are not being forced anything. And like you have the right to eat what you wish, keep in mind that farmers have the right to grow as much or as little GMO crops as they wish.
Now GMOs are not labelled, that is how I am forced to eat GMOs. Every time when I go shopping, I have to google a lot to find out whether some food is already GMO. Still I could not tell all food. For example, one of my favorite foods: eggplants could be GMOs. But I am not an expert yet to tell which variety of eggplants is GMO. Even some organic food could be GMOs! such as, there is something called: “organic canola oil”. Really ridiculous name, damaging the organic brand.
And when I go to cafeterias or restaurants, I have no control. Just have to eat. Where is my right?
I don’t care “most plants have chemicals”. I believe the mother nature more than some scientists. Because those plants still can give birth to next generations naturally, regardless their chemicals. But GMOs seeds can only be bought from chemical companies like Monsanto. Why? That is the basic difference. That means the built-in pesticide in GMOs are different. If you cannot prove it toxic, you cannot prove it safe. Why assume they are safe? By being forced to eat GMOs, we are at least part of the animal experiments. And actually there are already findings proving they lead to birth defects…..
I call for true scientists! I don’t want to be part of animal experiments! Stop it! Don’t go evil!
These “scientists” should keep their bullshit to themselves. There are mountains of evidence that GMOs are evil/an abomination/toxic/out of control…Every new “food” product that comes out has more GMOs and toxic chemicals than the ones before. I wonder how these “geniuses” would rationalize/justify peanut butter that besides the “peanut oil”, contains corn, soy, canola and cottonseed oils! This is insanity at its best!
Exactly what evidence is needed to determine whether an inanimate object or process is “evil”? What methods are used? Is this a quantitative measurement? Is a priest or shaman required?
As far as evidence about toxicity, you can find mountains here at Biofortified here: https://biofortified.org/genera/guide/
What does peanut butter have to do with this at all? Nothing, as far as I can tell, but since you mentioned it, my personal favorite peanut butter is PB2 which has had all peanut oils removed and no other oils added. This significantly reduces the amount of fat while maintaining flavor and protein. However, it has to be mixed with water or milk into a paste, making it a little less convenient to use. As far as I know, peanut butters that have added vegetable oil actually only have very small amounts of that oil, which is added to increase smoothness and to prevent the peanut butter from separating, making it more convenient to use without changing nutritional quality. Perhaps it takes a genius to figure this out, but I don’t think so. Perhaps people who can’t figure this out are just lacking in intelligence.
The same string of DNA is also Yours. Thats biology.
Joanne,
No one is forcing you to eat GMOs. Most of the GMO crops are fed to animals or woven into clothes. We are not attacking you. You are making your life much more miserable than it needs to be. I’m sorry for that. I wish I could help with information because that is what I have to offer.
Steve
I am not miserable. I am noble. I have the courage to speak out. Really proud of myself. 🙂
I would be glad if it is true that most of GMOs are not fed to humans yet. Still, that is a lie. I heard that even GMO wheat will be fed to humans soon. Sadly, “GM Crops are More Widespread than you Think, and Linked to Potential Health Hazards” according to this article http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/05/05/the-dirty-secret-gmo-companies-dont-want-you-to-know.aspx
At least 8 types GMO foods are already very popular. And we are forced to eat them every day.
“Soy Sugar from sugar beets
Corn Hawaiian papaya
Cottonseed (used in vegetable cooking oils) Some varieties of zucchini
Canola (canola oil) Crookneck squash”
For example, my favorite cakes are made by Canola oil! Tears….
I still can google and learn to find out whether some food is GMOs. But most people who believe in sham scientists may still enjoy GMOs.
I call for true scientists, not the killers!
Self-pride is nice to a point, but please explain to me how dismissing things you don’t understand as evil and insulting people by calling them “sham scientists” and accusing them of being “killers” is noble.
We are “forced” to eat genetically engineered substances because the companies that make the processed foods in the supermarkets do not label them as such. In Europe it is mandatory to label these foods. In the USA the deregulation on the biotech industry has led to no labeling. We want labeling. I read all my labels and know how to avoid “gmos”. Most people don;t because they are not even aware of this, so they are being forced. Label these foods. We can then make a choice and vote on what we want to eat. I avoid them while I can.
Maria,
What do you think about my right to know if a food was produced using illegal Mexican workers?
No one is forcing us to eat GMOs? What reality do you live in?! If people aren’t being “forced” to eat them – then label them, so the “not so bright” can make an informed choice!
Greg H (who I hope is my old friend from Davis),
you make many rational points. Well said.
Thanks. I’m not who you’re thinking of though.
Sometimes when I step back from this who thing I am amazed that such a huge issue is being made of this subject. It really is too bad that so few crops will benefit from biotechnology because of this whole mess. Especially, I think, the less commonly cultivated ones. I like the ‘wierd’ things, and I think it would be pretty cool if genetic engineering could help things that haven’t had as much breeding work catch up with everything else so to speak, but unfortunately it doesn’t look like that will happen any time soon. Hopefully, the Arctic apple will be able to pull it off whenever it comes to market and maybe lead the way for others. I think, in the world of fruit anyway, that a lot of growers are edgy at the thought of being stuck with something for a few years when some protesters could destroy their market with a good fearmongering campaign, and that is not conductive to GM fruits at all. I would like to think that the lack of horticultural GM crops is only temporary, but there still is a long way to go.
Question about the NewLeaf potato: I’m not sure if this is true, but didn’t it’s discontinuation result in Monsanto now having a market for the spray that replaced the NewLeaf’s traits? It would be a bit ironic if anti-GMO sentiment resulted in a bigger profit for Monsanto through chemical sales.
Greg – as far as I’m aware Monsanto don’t produce insecticides (other than those in Bt crops, which admittedly is a rather large market these days…) so wouldn’t benefit from the non-release of a product for controlling insects.
Most anti-GMO actually don’t care about the scientific facts, not what the scientists say.
Most GMOs activists don’t care about the scientific facts, not what the scientists say. Scientists already said GMOs bring birth defect. But you GMO makers only care about your money and power. You don’t care about human’s life.
What is most important, you guys dare not label GMOs. You guys force people to eat GMOs. You guys will be the shame of the history.
Joanne – why do you trust the scientists who say they bring birth defects (a minority whose studies can be critiqued out of consideration rather easily by anyone with a passing knowledge of statistics in most cases) but not those who say they’re safe (the vast majority, backed by sound studies which show no evidence of differences) – is this a case of confirmation bias – you’ve decided prior to looking that GMOs are bad, therefore all the studies that agree with your viewpoint must be right – regardless of their fundamental flaws.
As I state below (how confusing!) at every stage where it is pertinent to label GMOs they are labelled, proudly so (given that the GM aspect is a big part of the sale of the item) – at stages where it is not pertinent it is not labelled.
No, you choose not to exercise your right to avoid them by educating yourself.
I’m sure that historians will find some way to paint massive reductions in environmental impact from herbicide use, improved farmer lives, less insecticide use and the economic benefits for adopters and non-adopters alike as bad – after all there are those who call themselves historians who are perfectly content claiming that the world is some thousands of years younger than it would need to be to contain all of recorded human history.
By Monsanto’s own admission, they are spraying more and more toxins, due to the proliferation of “superweeds” and “superbugs”! Explain how this is a good thing for people! I’ve done thousands of hours of research on this topic and those who are pro GMO are either totally brainwashed or completely braindead. Pandora’s box has been opened and you’ve all been warned. You don’t “play God”, without dire consequences. There’s a very good reason the elite built the “Doomsday Vault” in the arctic!
Joanne is absolutely correct in saying that we (the human race) have a right to choose whether we want to eat food which has been CONTAMINATED with GM products!
Steve Savage makes a couple points which I would like to address:
1. “the reality is that only a small number of crop species will ever be genetically engineered for commercial use.”
You either ignorant of the issue, or you purposely ignore it.
The products which ARE genetically modified are incorporated into thousands of foods! The contamination is not just in Corn, Soy, and Canola because those contaminated products are scattered all over the food industry. So your point above is completely irrelevant and misleading!
2. “it would be completely impractical to track and label the corn, soybeans etc.”
Impractical? – or Co$tly? Two different things when you take the time to critique the situation. The answer, as you admitted to, is that it is co$tly. You proceed to claim that “You would substantially increase the cost of all foods to do that.”, which may be true or not, however the “cost” should be derived from those pushing for the use of the contaminated product, and NOT from the rest of society! Basically Monsanto and Co. should be footing that bill! So it’s a silly excuse and labeling the products is not in fact “impractical” in the least!
Greg H. states: “Scientists are not us, what a strange thing to say. Scientists are just people like anyone else. There isn’t some line drawn between those who do science and everyone else…”
If that is true then why do you (and others) give so much credence to what Scientists have to say? Scientists may be “people” but they are not necessarily “people like everyone else”, and this can be for better or for worse.
In today’s world it’s a known fact that Scientist clamor for funding as well as recognition. Both of those come in their greatest form from Governments and big, BIG, business. This brings us to something Steve Savage wrote at the opening of the main article: “every significant panel of scientists that has reviewed this technology has concluded that it is as safe as any other domesticated food crop.”. This is as naive as claiming that McDonalds food is healthy because the company’s spokesman said so, or that Iran is not building nuclear weapons because their government spokesman said so (I am not implying that they are). It’s called “motive”, and just like all other “people” in the world, Scientists can be motivated to lie. If you disagree than obviously Scientist ARE NOT “just people like anyone else”.
We know also for a fact that in order for ANYONE to to ANY testing or research on ANY Monsanto product that they must first sign a document which allows Monsanto to hold anything back from being published that they see fit. I suppose some would argue that this is also due to it being “impractical” to publish the raw findings without motivated individuals editing the data!
So we have Scientists and researchers who do tests and approve the product etc, and we have Scientists and researchers who do tests and do not approve the products etc. Those who DO approve it we label “significant”, while those who DO NOT approve we dismiss altogether!? – And you call that Science!?
Another point is in regards to the purposed goal of creating GM products. The goal was to have higher crop yields, however this has never happened in the real world and in fact in some studies (again those dismissed by Steve and friends) the yields have been poorer than no-GM crop varieties. What has happened is that farmers can now grow on more land all the time, not having to let the soil rest as they used to, and this creates a crop which year after year becomes less and less nutritious, as well as leaving behind it a soil which is depleted of all it’s natural health and nutrients – barren and waste!
But you can count on these type to also dismiss all that as “myth” because it does not come from their “significant panel of scientists”.
“In today’s world it’s a known fact that Scientist clamor for funding as well as recognition. Both of those come in their greatest form from Governments and big, BIG, business. This brings us to something Steve Savage wrote at the opening of the main article: “every significant panel of scientists that has reviewed this technology has concluded that it is as safe as any other domesticated food crop.”. This is as naive as claiming that McDonalds food is healthy because the company’s spokesman said so.”
My guess is that you are a political liberal. As I’m a gay, atheist farmer, you might expect that I am one, too. But statements such as the one quoted above exemplify why I disdain politics and have since become “independent.” The Left can be as paranoid, anti-scientific, and ignorant as the Right on certain pet issues.
When it comes to food, farming, and pharmacology, the Left sounds just like the Teabaggers.
So GM (Bt) cotton yields aren’t higher than non-GM then? Funny, last time I looked they were almost double. Its irrelevant anyway. I’m not sure when it will sink in to people like you Jefrey that yield is not the main aim of any GM crop really. It is increased net farm income when pesticide, fertiliser, fuel and manpower costs have been taken into account at the end of the season. Also they can provide an insurance policy that your crop will yield at all should eratic events such as insect/weed/virus infestations or drought effect your crop.
Jonathan
I would suppose then that it would depend whom you ask. In India there were 80% increases in GM crop yields, however that did nothing to ease the plight of hungry people in the region. In fact the 80% increase in GM crop yields had the exact opposite effect where thousands of family farms were abandoned by their original owners – many of who committed suicide after realising they had ruined their land and could not keep up with the payments to the big Corps for the product. Higher yields are not, in this case, a good thing.
Additionally there were many farmers who bought seed from Monsanto with the promise of a) the seed being resistant to pests, and b) it would increase their yield. The reality was the complete polar opposite – the cotton was ravaged by pests and thus the yield was a pathetic fraction of their regular crop. All those farmers lost everything they had as it was invested in a promise from Monsanto, who have a wonderful sales pitch which includes the sickening “we bare no responsibility”.
I have seen and heard on many occasions the issue of yield being brought up in favour of GMO, so it is definitely something which people who are pro-GMO attempt to boasts of.
But your assessment is that GMO is really about “net income”. Well as far as I have been made aware the average income per hectare for a GM crop farm of around 2000 hectares is just over $20. In contrast to that, the average income per hectare of a non-GM crop farm of under 10 hectares is around $1900. The point is that, due to the corrupt system setup by big agro and mega corporations, the farmer gets squiddles while the bulk of revenue goes … where!? … so for a farmer growing a GM crop to make a decent living he has to plant on thousands of hectares.
While there is the “insurance”, there is also much that is not insured. Then there is also the issue of having to go year after year back to the seed sellers to buy more seed, as you cannot store the seed from your crop for next years sowing.
Then there is also the issue of ground erosion and the destruction of microbiology which is wreaked on nature by the GM crops which have been modified to release toxins which annihilate everything with an alkaline gut and every other plant around them.
It’s flat out naive to think that big agro and affiliated corporations give a hoot about improving the life of farmers, or the hungry of the world.
Well, let me ask you a question. Let’s say there’s a plumber looking at your pipes, and he says that you need to do this that and the other thing or you’ll have problems. You assume he’s lying because he could have a financial incentive to say that. So you ask another plumber. He says you need to do this that and the other thing or you’ll have problems. You call him a liar too. You ask a dozen other plumbers, and they all say the same thing, and you come to the same conclusion. So what do you do? Realize that one lying plumber is possible, two lying plumbers is possible, three is possible, but all of them lying is highly unlikely, or say plumbers aren’t people like everyone else and wait until you’re up to your eyeballs in sewage. Same thing here. One scientist lying, sure. Two lying, could happen. Three, believable. The entire scientific community, worldwide, not a chance. And there are no small number of those who are independent, and I’m sure plenty who are not, as they say, paid enough to lie. And really, all a scientist is is one who has the knowledge of a scientific topic and applies it. I would rather trust someone with that knowledge than someone without it. Who would you rather have making those calls on those panels, some bloke who wouldn’t know a gene from a hole in the ground? Obviously, these things are going to be pretty much exclusively done by experts, because they’re, you know, the people who actually have expertise and know what they’re talking about.
Furthermore, I would like to know why that logic is never applied to the anti-GMO promoters. No one ever calls them out on how professional activists make their living on this so-called controversy, or cares about how the organic industry has a vested interest in people being afraid of GMOs. Why is it only scientists who are singled out here? It’s another double standard, and one I’ve seen in every other strain of unscientific thought. It’s just like how the anti-vaxxers go on and on about Paul Offit, but conveinently neglect to mention And
About crop yield, that depends on the place, crop, and trait. GMO is not some monolithic entity. Look at Bt corn in the US. If memory serves, the gain in yield is something like 3-5% (or something like that). However, with that has come more than yield, it has brought a nice decrease in pesticide usage. That same crop, in an area where they weren’t already spraying tons of pesticide, can create a much higher yield, IIRC something like 25%. Now look at the Rainbow papaya. Without it, there would be no Hawaiian papaya industry. That’s preventing a loss of almost 100%. Surely that is significant.
And I think what is meant by few GM crops will be approved for commercial use was that the crops, not the products containing those crops. Lots of processed produces have corn in them, so lots of processed food has GM ingredients, but when was the last time you saw GMO blueberries, asparagus, onions, or pears? Never. A lot of things have GMOs in them, yes, but only a few species are genetically modified. There’s a big difference there, and it isn’t misleading at all to say that.
On the analogy of the plumber you fail to bring in a factor – common sense. It’s something which, no matter how “educated” one may claim to be, can be sorely lacking. For instance, I recently saw a filmed debate where two American professors were arguing the case for GMO, and a young Bulgarian man was arguing the case against it. The professors with their laptop and all their scientific data sounded very legit and smooth in comparison to the Bulgarian with poor English and a pen and notepad. However as the debate wore on one thing became very apparent – the professors stood behind their scientific data and peer reviewed materials while largely ignoring the real-life impact that their “science” was having on a range of levels. The Bulgarian was all about the real-life impact that GMO was having on a day-to-day basis, while largely ignoring the scientific data presented by the professors. At one particular point the professors were stumped pretty bad after the Bulgarian had just gone through a long and damning list of real-life consequences of GMO, to which the professors basically could only reply that they simply look at the scientific material (on their laptop screen) and that that is where they stand. To me this is utter nonsense and begs the question if maybe so-called “science” is leaning more and more away from reality and towards hypotheticals and theories where pretty much the imagination is the rule of thumb.
You further state: “One scientist lying, sure. Two lying, could happen. Three, believable. The entire scientific community, worldwide, not a chance.”
I guess we are back at defining the “scientific community”. You seem to think that the “entire scientific community” is pro-GMO … !? I highly doubt that to be the case – unless you discount anyone anti-GMO as being not part of your “scientific community”.
In regards to being sceptical of the anti-GMO side, I should tell you that I am. However, the very fact that they use real-life examples and not lab reports means that they have (imo) a certain edge above those sitting around in front of their laptops looking at models and telling us that mathematically it all adds up while on the ground it’s simply not!
One very highly touted point raised by the pro-GMO side is that 75%-80% of the world is hungry and with GMO we will be able to solve that – again, due to higher yield. This is pure and plain sudi-science again coming from lab coats in front of computer models etc. The fact on the ground is that, for instance, in Africa only 2 countries (afaik), Egypt and South Africa, have been dabbling in growing GM crops. Why? Because they are the only ones who can (barely) afford to. Lately also Kenya and Burkina Faso also have gotten involved, though Kenya is more involved in projects backed by Monsanto, the World Bank and USAID, and Burkina Faso only grows GM cotton. In regards to easing the hunger in Africa GM crops have done nothing of report in the past 10-15 years. But there is always the promise of “rain” from those raking in the big buck$.
This brings to mind the infamous “Golden Rice” which holds a higher level of bet-carotene (vit A). In India researchers have demonstrated that instead of pouring copious amounts of money into the R&D for this rice, a fraction of that expense could have been made to assist and encourage the development and propagation of native varieties of rice, legumes, and other food stuffs. There would be no need for a tinkered-with and expensive GM crop – but there was no money to be made in simply helping people grow their native healthy and natural foods, was there! So now they grow 80% more cotton then before!? … Last I checked cotton is not edible! And most of those small-scale family farms that were producing something for their family and communities are now gone. All thanks to the wonders of GMO.
Maybe there is a way to genetically modify plants that is safe and wholesome – but it’s not today. We, the human race at large, have become the laboratory. We have the right to choose to eat GM products or not to – but how can one choose between what they cannot define!?
Why must it be a political agenda when it comes to what we eat? Taking the scientific perspective I would want to eat the healthiest, most nutritious, cleanest, and toxic free product available. Roundup resistant and sprayed crops can’t deliver on that statement. These crops (corn) comprise the largest part of the western worlds diets than any other single crop. So why do we feel it is acceptable to push these types of products towards the mass population and children especially? Science needs to work hand and hand with the people it is intended to benefit, but complete transparency is the key. It can’t always just be about time saving, easier methods and cost effective to obtain what we want when the side effects are alarming on many levels. So, if you don’t want people to attack you for what you feel is right then give people the ability to make choices. When you just force it down our throats don’t expect us to thank you for it.
“When you just force it down our throats don’t expect us to thank you for it.”
Well said!
It seems simple to me Label GMOs or non GMOs and let the public decide.
Oh your absolutely right. It is indeed simple. At the very least it cannot be harder than producing nutritional information on each and every product on the shelf. No, it’s not about it being “impractical”, it’s that fact that big agro and stock holders know that many people will not buy products containing GM ingredients. It’s all about the profit$ in this respect.
Here’s the thing… Monsanto is an evil, evil company not to be trusted, period. History has proven that time and time again over the past 110 years. Agent Orange, PCBs, dioxin, DDT, etc.
GMO, whether rightly or wrongly, is linked in the consumer’s mind to Monsanto.
To win a fight for GMO, science would essentially have to neuter or eliminate Monsanto’s influence with the government and enforce a much higher code of ethics amongst themselves.
Even if GMO was the answer to world hunger, global warming, profitable family farming, etc. etc. (I personally find many GMO claims dubious, but not entirely unfounded), the absurdity of Monsanto’s legal strategies of chasing down seed savers and enforcing RoundUp patents singlehandedly derails much progress that could be made. There is simply no other way to interpret Monsanto’s actions as anything other than them wanting to control food stock.
It could well be that ADM, Cargill, et.al. are equally culpable. However, the public (rightly) believes that Monsanto would put their profits over public health. They are public enemy #1.
And that’s the primary reason people want labeling.
You’re looking at the science when you need to be looking at the PR, understanding and empathizing with the consumers’ viewpoints and (very real) fears. And that’s a battle scientists are unlikely to win as long as Monsanto is on the planet.
I’d personally like to avoid GMO although that’s difficult, if not impossible to do. It’s a matter of trust. And no matter how many studies scientists publish on the benefits of GMO, a large number of consumers will remain distrustful, primarily because of Monsanto’s continuing history of evil.
So why don’t all you scientists do something about that?
“You’re looking at the science when you need to be looking at the PR” That is precisely the problem. People are interpreting this in terms of how they feel about corporations and corporate PR – not in terms of what we know about the crops.
HA! I think the gay atheist farmer said it best. Everybody is trying to put spin on every word spoken, when it comes to food. If you think about it, food is the greatest industry in human history because everyone needs it. You could get by without a car, a computer, even clothes if you were really desperate. But everybody NEEDS to eat. What I was attempting to accomplish by posting the link is that, you can find good and bad science on both sides. Responding to each with articulate and reasoned communication is how you really learn.
The study I linked to to kick this off is obviously incendiary. If you read the actual study itself, it speaks to the inherent issues with Roundup-ready pesticides, and that conversation means bleed-off into a discussion of the GMO crops that are Roundup-resistant. That is the issue here: a business, though very legal and accepted practices, has brought a product to market which many feel is safe, and have seen a gain in market-share as the product is adopted. Everything else, from suing farmers for seed-infringement, to employing scientific logic that even Steve has to admit is dubious, is this company protecting their investment. I personally don’t agree with it, but the United States of America is built on this, and I wouldn’t want to be any where else.
I choose to only eat organic foods, because I want food that is food, not that is an experiment. That’s my decision, and I would never take away the option for people to eat whatever they want. I don’t want to outlaw GMO crops; it’s a business like anything else. Not to mention, how organic are my organic foods (http://eatdrinkbetter.com/2011/01/11/how-organic-are-your-organics/)? But it’s my choice, and I am glad to have the ability to make it. The only way to be really, TRULY sure of what you are eating is to grow it yourself, with seeds from a reputable organic source. That’s the only rock-solid method to confirm you are eating what you choose to eat. And that is my main point: I want to eat food in it’s most pure form. I don’t want to be a science experiment, and I think Steve can agree that no matter how many studies either of us post, we don’t know enough about GMO crops to land on either side 100%.
Full disclosure as there are a number of new names who appear at least moderately displeased with my employer – I’m a Monsanto employee, employed in R&D, and the comments contained herein, or indeed anywhere you see my moniker on the interweb are entirely my own and not those of Monsanto.
I’m plonking this down at the end as there is a lot to cover and I’m a big fan of the multipage brainmelter which displeases Anastasia so.
Decades of safe use (on farms, forestry, and at home), decades of studies showing nothing of the sort.
Because the best way to live your life is to take the advice of people who haven’t got a clue about what they’re talking about – I base all my medical decisions on the opinion of the checkout guy at the local supermarket because I put no credibility in doctors, I get my legal advice from my cousin’s dog because lawyers are a shifty bunch, rather than have architects get near the plans for my new house I think I’ll jsut do it myself – who cares for the opinion of experts if it contradicts your own pre-conceived ideas right?
I’ve got mine, F you. How simply awesome.
You have the right not to care what harm you do to others because you don’t trust scientists? How does one follow from the other. You’re perfectly at liberty not to trust the scientific consensus (it’s a rather silly approach, but one that anyone has the right to do) but to not care that you may be harming others by promulgating nonsense is pretty despicable.
Please illustrate where this has done any harm. Ever.
Monsanto actually does label all its seeds as GMOs – at every stage in the supply chain where it is important to know which seeds are genetically modified it says so, right there, on the bag – it’s only when it becomes utterly meaningless and nigh on impossible to track that the burden of labelling appears and is rightly ignored (likewise Monsanto, Pioneer, Syngenta, Bob’s Seeds etc all label their bags with the hybrid name and other important information like relative maturity, disease resistance etc – none of this information makes it to the final products of the food chain – all of it has precisely the same impact as GMO, funny that)
They do. At every stage where it is important to do so (seriously, go to a seed store and check out the bags – anything that is roundup ready states it on the bag)
Buy organic. Nobody forces Jewish people who want to live kosher to eat non-kosher foods by failing to label everything “this product is not kosher”, same with Halal – you want to eat a certain way that’s entirely your right – but the onus is on you to get it done and to bear the cost burden of the segregation of products.
Intruiging – how exactly have scientists failed you?
It depends entirely what you compare them to – compared to the same crop grown in any other system you don’t have a case about health, nutrition, cleanliness or toxin load (indeed compared to other conventionally grown crops you could argue that they’d have a lower toxin load although for all intents and purposes this would be essentially meaningless as the levels of herbicide residues that would be present in either the RR or non-RR foodstuff aren’t close to being meaningful in terms of toxicity)
Because you’re handcuffed and forced to buy products that contain GMOs, you are utterly incapable of avoiding soy and corn, you can’t make the decision to purchase certified organic – there is a whole multi-billion dollar industry geared precisely to allowing you the freedom to eat what you want – but as this is an inconvenient fact in your rant against GMOs it apparently can be ignored.
Nobody ever invites me to the fun meetings. It’s all corporate responsibility this, sustainable yield initiative that – frankly I’d have way more ideas to bring to the table if we actually were an evil behemoth (happy days playing Dungeon Keeper trained me well) as things stand I get to tinker with data, play in the lab, and make powerpoint (I have a strong conviction that 95% of corporate life revolves around powerpoint slides – I often wonder if academics suffer the same indignity, although perhaps grant proposals take the place of ye olde powerpoint presentation) presentations.
Nobody claims that it is. Part of the solution, sure, just as a nail gun is part of the solution in installing crown molding, I don’t imagine anyone sensible would suggest you utilize it as your only tool however.
Absurd how? Millions of dollars are invested in producing the technology, hundreds of thousands of farmers pay fair market price for the technology, why should Monsanto not get return on their investment, and why should other farmers have to deal with an unfair system whereby others don’t pay for the technology? Monsanto won’t be enforcing any Roundup patents either given that that particular patent ran out a couple years back (with much calamity financially for Monsanto in the process – but such is the nature of patents, you only have exclusivity for a relatively short period of time – which is kind of the point, and one that vocal opponents of GMOs always ignore)
Well, I guess one could suppose that they’re also trying to contaminate our precious bodily fluids. You’d be about as sane.
ok. Scientists, in order for me to listen to you, be sure to prove you are right! And first of all, you need to give me transparency of information! Do not hide information! Then, how to prove? You need to do human experiments for hundred and thousand years first to see the long term effect. You need to be open to what other scientists with different findings.
I said, “you are not us”. I am right. I am responsible for myself. I care about my health. It is my health, not Your health. I don’t expect a scientist is responsible for my health, in this dark age. Scientists could be evil! You just want to use us to do animal experiments! A scientist in this age is hunting for money and power, for funding and recognition (but probably a notorious fame). But they don’t care, they just want funding first. The notorious fame may come after they die. They don’t care.
I copied the following quote from a facebook group http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2209163750&v=info “A Monsanto official told the New York Times that the corporation should not have to take responsibility for the safety of its food products. “Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of ‘bio-tech’ food,” said Phil Angell, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications. “Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.”
You guys can verify it.
I am not arguing whether GMOs are safe. Since scientists don’t really care.
Scientists, if you really want to do good to me, please at least label GMOs first, do not force me to be part of animal experiments, do not force to eat GMOs.
OKay?
You seriously contend that to assess safety of a product requires testing for 1,000 years?
Let’s assume that you’re not a native American – do you eat corn? Potatoes? Tomatoes? Not one of these products has undergone over a thousand years of “testing” in any human population other than those native to the Americas.
Lets assume you eat… hmm, canola oil. Even if it doesn’t come from a GM source (and why this would matter is beyond me given that during processing all that remains is the oil – chemically identical to the oil that comes from a non-GM plant… although given your Mercola citation who knows what whack-a-loonery will be invoked to explain why this matters) Canola oil is a relatively new invention that hasn’t undergone anything like a thousand years testing (I’d guess most of everything in your diet hasn’t undergone anything like this to be honest)
No – all science should be approached skeptically – only if it has sound methodology and is repeatable should it be taken seriously – the safety of GM products is repeated ad nauseum in the scientific literature to the extent that the vapid claims about toxicity are quite cleary silly.
I think then you mean you are not me, rather than not us.
Although not enough apparently to take the rather easy steps of avoiding something you firmly believe to be toxic. I have a colleague who is allergic to soy, corn, wheat (amongst a plethora of other things) – all the fun stuff – he has somehow managed over the last 4 decades to avoid these ubiquitous products – why then can’t you (as avoiding soy and corn would essentially free you from the shackles of GM food)?
This is funny as it essentially echos one of the main complaints of anti-GMO groups – the company responsible for producing the product shouldn’t be the one verifying its safety (although one would assume the shareholders would want you to verify safety so that you avoid big honking lawsuits down the line – paying out hundreds of millions of dollars isn’t a good way to increase EPS) – odd that when the same thing comes from the mouth of someone working for the company it is suddenly a bad thing.
You’ve simply decided they ain’t. You then justify this by presuming to tell scientists what they do and do not care about. This is rather amusing given the fact that it is blindingly obvious that Steve and David clearly care enough to be concerned that farmers who would be helped by GMOs are denied the technology by luddites who really don’t care. I suppose your arguement would be that we shouldn’t attempt to convince anyone that there is utility to the technology because your mind is made up – you don’t give a damn about anyone other than yourself, if Chinese children have to be sprayed with insecticides then so be it, if a hundred thousand kids go blind due to lack of vitamin A then buggrem right? They ain’t me, and that’s all that matters.
Oh and finally…
This right here shows all the ignorance of modern science one could ever hope for. You don’t make big money doing science (some might, but certainly not in academia, and certainly not when you’re the poor bugger doing the actual science, rather than the poor bugger up to their ears in grant proposals after maybe a decade or so of doing the actual science) – money, power, funding and recognition are all easily up for grabs – ask Gilles Seralini, ask Putzai – these are the names that are remembered, these are the guys doing the international tours and influencing the decision making process of blocs of nations – nobody remembers Joe nobody who makes the rather uncontrovertial discovery that apparently yes, GM soy still doesn’t actually have any effects whatsoever on rats when you do the experiments right.
Hilarious and true (especially the powerpoint part LOL):
How some science has failed me? Here it is:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/05/05/the-dirty-secret-gmo-companies-dont-want-you-to-know.aspx
http://www.examiner.com/finance-examiner-in-national/gmo-created-foods-may-be-used-as-a-biological-weapon
http://vanessaruns.com/2011/02/08/gmos-and-why-you-should-never-use-canola-oil/
“It is now believed that rapeseed has a cumulative effect, taking almost 10 years before symptoms begin to manifest. One possible effect of long-term use is the destruction of the protective coating surrounding nerves called the myelin sheath. This is like having raw, open wires in the body. Some symptoms include:
tremors and shaking
uncoordination when walking or writing
slurred speech
deterioration of memory and thinking processes
fuzzy or low audio levels
difficulty urinating/incontinence
breathing problems/short of breath
nervous breakdown
numbness and tingling in extremities
heart problems/arrhythmia”
Mercola is as credible a source on science made me spit coffee all over my keyboard.
You owe me a keyboard.
Pretty typical … anyone who doesn’t toot your horn is no longer “credible”. You people are what ruin what could have a better report.
Mercola is an anti-vax alt medicine whack-a-loon, it isn’t a case of not tooting my horn, it’s a case of claiming to toot a non-existent horn which cures cancer.
Ewan,
Thanks for adding to this discussion with an insightful response to the staunch and furious anti-GMO viewpoint. Unfortunately, I think many on the anti- side believe that ‘built-in pesticide’ means that GMOs contain DDT (and other hideous and harmful chemicals).
I was fortunate to have the opportunity to view Food, Inc. with a group of agricultural producers. A panel discussion followed the movie, and a Monsanto spox was on the discussion panel. She did a great job explaining the misinformation that was rampant in that film. Farmers (read: scientists) in the audience left the event better equipped to answer questions from the misinformed public.
Monsanto is fortunate to have you…keep up the good work that will likely help solve the hunger problem.
Ewan R,
Thanks for injecting some sanity into this stream. I guess what this discussion has demonstrated is that “there is way too much angst out there about GMO crops” and also that the angst-filled folks are impervious to facts or perspective. Maybe some people like to be afraid of what they eat. I’ve got a new post coming today where I list 12 foods that I am actually afraid to eat starting with bean sprouts! Did anyone notice that the worst E. coli outbreak ever just happened in Europe in spite of their labeling laws, smaller farms and more Organic?
Steve – I assume you’re referring to the yearning for corporate evil bit – I do try! (I look forward to the coming post, although I’m going to call you on being too angst-ridden (probably, ornary sod that I am)
Oh Steve, how very novel of you to label those not willing to bend over and take it just because you say so as being “impervious to facts or perspective”. Sickening to be frank!
Those supporting the adoption of ge crops are called corporate shills, greedy, corrupt, ignorant, you name it, and you take offense to ‘impervious to facts’? Really?
You were literally just using sodomy as an analogy to promoting ge crops in the line above, and ‘impervious to facts’ is ‘sickening’?
In your above comment from jun 10 10:33, you were describing how you find a random bulgarian with a notepad(nothing against bulgarians) to be more convincing on matters genetic than two scientists who specialize in the field. Could it possibly be that because you already agreed with him, he sounded more convincing? That sure looks like imperviousness to facts to me.
It’s often said that people should ignore hotheaded ridiculous claims, and attempt to reach the moderate fence-sitters.
Allow me to differ. Those with hotheaded ridiculous claims should be confronted directly — so that fence-sitters can see how to spot reprehensible liars, and the lameness of their claims.
Ewan,
One suggested change: “sure” => “probably.” Then it’s perfect.
As for Joanne’s peculiar fixation on “labeling,” let’s say that I don’t want to eat anthing ever touched by a non-believer (in whatever sect), and demand, no DEMAND, that all foods ever touched by someone of another sect be so-labeled. That is actually a real-world situation in some places.
I also don’t like the cattle industry, so I want everything fertilized with cattle manure labeled. And, in the interest of patriotism, I want labeling if the producer uses foeign labor or farm equipment. And I want the label to contain a soil analysis of the producers’ farm, just to make sure they’re taking care of the soil and there’s no risk of elevated toxic metals. And since transportation wastes so much energy, I want to the label to tell me how far the ingredients have traveled, and by what method, with VINs so I can verify the shipper’s logs.
And Joanne, look-up Canola. It was developed because science discovered that erucic acid was bad for health. Scientists did not fail you; they may have saved millions by discovering this. But if you do look it up, you will probably find lots of hysterical sites like this (http://www.ithyroid.com/canola_oil.htm) to feed your confirmation bias. I happen to know the history, and let me say that I find this to be accurate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canola.
It sounds like you need to read-up on science, and especially epidemiology (assuming you understand enough statistics first): anecdotes are worth almost nothing. If, as someone I met once asserted, food, even water, cooked in a microwave oven becomes DeadlyPoison(tm), then why don’t we see epidemiological evidence? If this substance “GMO” you go nattering on about is so bloody dangerous, then it should be very easy to detect the population effects.
Of course, you could be a POE, or maybe there really is a Vast International Conspiracy covering-up all the evidences of brain-control waves, chemtrails, vaccine toxins, JFK, microwave ovens and all the rest. If so, then almost everybody but you is “in” on it, so maybe you should just surrender.
Imprecise use of language on my part – conversational usage of the word sure (ie “you want to go get a beer?” “Sure, let’s get a beer”) rather than an attempt to classify the odds of something being useful (although I’d argue that in terms of GMOs the question has been answered for certain useage, so perhaps sure would still work jsut fine with the qualifier that any new issue to be tackled you have to start from probably, or even potentially)
Ewan,
I don’t think it is out of the realm of possibility that Monsanto cares in anyway for the long term health of people as long as the profits continue to stream in. If Monsanto wanted to care for the masses of people it fed it would be far less litigious in its methods of dealing with them for one. As for being able to easily pick and choose which foods are contaminated with GMO or round up that is a pandora’s box at every meal. In respects to food being contaminated I think the evidence continues to flow in that is exactly what has been happening for a long time. If I want to get non-GMO fed meat. How easy is it for me to find it at any local grocery store or restaurant? Many of us don’t want your chemicals sprayed on our foods. Isn’t that clear enough? In regards to sanity and food. It seems someone would be a little insane to say yes please give me the corn with the potential health damaging chemicals on it just so you don’t have to deal with weeds.
“Many of us don’t want your chemicals sprayed on our foods. Isn’t that clear enough?”
That is only a portion of the issue – but well said!
Given the tenuous standing of GMOs and the companies reliance on them for profits if one were harmful it would literally kill the company. So even if Monsanto as an entity didn’t care one fig about whether or not people got hurt the bottom line is if people did get hurt Monsanto would be ruined (hence the need for heavy regulation of industry where there is potential for harm – when all that matters is the bottom line then make what really matters severely impact the bottom line)
Who is Monsanto litigious with in terms of people it is feeding? A mere handful of farmers who are saving seed? Who else exactly?
Nice emotive use of the word contaminated in a situation where it is utterly meaningful – it ain’t contamination if it ain’t doing anything bad. (in my opinion at least, I imagine the dictionary nazi’s would have something to say about this however)
Your grocery store doesn’t have an organic section? You can’t ask at the resturaunt if the food you’re eating has corn, soy or related produce in it? (I know you can as my aforementioned colleague does precisely that – if the resturaunt can’t answer then don’t eat there (seriously, even outside of this debate – if the chef doesn’t know what’s in her food she sucks))
Buy organic. The option is there. The evidence shows no harm caused by the chemicals sprayed on our food in the amounts they are sprayed (notwithstanding that the evidence suggests that of all the things sprayed on crops roundup is amongst the least toxic (as mentioned before though this doesn’t matter) and that one of the major traits around today is entirely based on reducing sprayed chemicals)
What is insane is that in the face of all the evidence to the contrary you still persist with the belief that there is potential to damage your health, or that the alternative to RR corn would be corn grown without any sprays at all – farmers are simply going to switch to another herbicide, likely one that actually has toxicity to humans (although not in the quantities that would ever be present on produce) – because I’m guessing you aren’t likely to want to pay the equivalent of $8 an ear so that the farmer can actually make a living off a field infested with weeds.
Larry M. said: Many of us don’t want your chemicals sprayed on our foods. Isn’t that clear enough?
Ewan R. responded: Buy organic. The option is there.
Organic farmers use pesticides. When I worked at an organic farm, I had to undergo training to be certified to spray pyrethrum, neem, copper sulfate, etc. The same Worker Protection Standards and EPA regulations apply to “organic” pesticides as to conventional pesticides.
This was the straw that broke the camel’s back with me. The cognitive dissonance was a bit much. “I’m working on an organic farm, yet I have to wear PPE and follow REI standards to spray organic pesticides.”
I was able to conclude that “organic” farming was more marketing than science.
Mike has seen for himself something that most people will never realize:
“I was able to conclude that “organic” farming was more marketing than science.”
I would so love to toss this in the faces of everyone who believes that we’ll all die from pesticides and the world will come to an end if we don’t all ‘go organic’. But that’s counter-productive, so I’ll continue to educate rather than sling (manure). Organic is an option for everyone, so for those who think it’s the best choice, just go that route and let the rest of us eat what we want to grow and eat
Mike Bendzela,
Well said. Yes, Organic farmers use pesticides. The allure of Organic is the story, not the reality.
I’m all about the story – or to be more accurate – the details. That’s why I like to buy directly from a farmer or through a coop whenever possible. I want to know that the person growing and handling my food is educated and responsible about the risks and benefits of the methods they use on farm, whether they are organic or conventional, and that the land is being farmed sustainably. I also want to make sure the farmer is getting a fair price and that farm workers were fairly paid. I find it strange that these things are apparently unimportant to anti-GMO folks, or at least not as important to them as not eating GMOs.
I would probably see myself as being more anti than pro GMO and I care about each and every point you made. I think you summarised the way this whole food thing should work very nicely!
If these things are important to you, then why aren’t you calling for labeling of each of these things? Why aren’t any of the people in this thread clamoring for mandatory labeling of GMOs also calling for mandatory labeling of hybrids, various pesticides, crop rotations, riparian buffers, virus load, fair pay, microbial testing, and so on? There are so many things to care about.
I’d personally like to see a voluntary bar code system that could be used to store all sorts of information. I could scan the bar code at the grocery store with a kiosk or my smart phone, or have a handy list to see which brands do whatever things I care about. That’s true choice for the consumer, farmer, and everyone in-between. And if your pet concern is not yet included in the voluntary labeling by the food brand you like? You’re welcome to send letters to encourage them to start.
I find organic is misleading as well. I am talking about direct sprays of Roundup which are made possible by the GE. The pesticides are just another avenue to make our foods detrimental to our long term health. The problem just doesn’t lay in the hands of Monsanto, but in the commercial farming system as a whole. That is why I am forced to grow my own food to supplement what I eat and try to live seasonally on the local/regional farmers. The problem though is I can’t just buy something that is organic and hope that it really means it is safe. It might be a better option but not necessarily the best practice.
“The pesticides are just another avenue to make our foods detrimental to our long term health.”
So, pesticides aren’t there for pest control? Instead they’re part of some nefarious plan to make food bad for us? Color me surprised! Do tell more.
@ Ewan,
Surely, all the ex-Monsanto employees that litter government positions would protect Monsanto’s “tenuous standing”. I feel fairly certain that your company won’t topple so easily given your 197 in the fortune 500 in 2010. I agree “heavy regulation” is needed, and I would hope if your company is so willing to that option then transparency via an impartial independent panel can assess these dangers?
The Government of Germany for blocking Monsanto GMO corn. Maybe they don’t wont to eat your corn like myself, and our making it clear through government regulation.
The spelling bee Nazi’s would have a field day with this one. You misspelled it two times not just one.
Organic has been found to be unreliable today as well. You cannot be guaranteed what comes down the food distribution chain given all the hands it passes through, and with the fact that GMO crosses over into meats and a variety of other products. People have to depend on the honesty and integrity of the food industry to do the right thing in many cases. Example would be the Baby milk scandal in China. Reputable companies were involved in that to their own demise. In respects to RESTAURANTS many of them are working on a fine line of profit. Staying financially afloat makes people do things they might not do otherwise to save a dime.
We should not have to hunt for healthy and safe edible food because your company thinks it is doing the right thing. I am sorry. I don’t believe your experts. Refer to Huffington Post Article dated 6/7/11
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/07/roundup-birth-defects-herbicide-regulators_n_872862.html?ref=fb&src=sp
Refer to the Huffington Post article above in regards to how healthy Roundup is for us. In respects to farmers switching to another pesticide they need to rethink that mentality as well. Mono cropping is failing on many levels. Farmers that are willing to make the changes today will far ahead of the curve than the ones that refuse to accept the inevitable. Farmers use to grow corn without all these crutches and were able to see a bountiful return. It is time for us all to return to a much more balanced position with nature. Where we aren’t destroying the land, the waterways, wildlife and above all ourselves. That is a real vision of sanity.
“Farmers use to grow corn without all these crutches and were able to see a bountiful return.”
Grammatical error* aside, this sentence is incorrect. Yields have been steadily increasing with the use of modern farming techniques, from fertilizers and pesticides to elite germplasm and even biotechnology. While there are no silver bullets, these methods in combination have made a big difference. See Today’s Organic, Yesterday’s Yields for some nice graphs that show how yields have changed over time. Take away all of these modern methods and you’re left with not much food produced per acre. More land would need to be be plowed or people would go hungry, even if we assume a huge reduction in the amount of meat consumed.
* I don’t normally pick out poor spelling or grammar, but since you were so concerned with Ewan’s spelling, I was surprised to find that your own writing was less than perfect.
I was only concerned with Ewan’s spelling because he pulled the grammar police card in the first place if you read above. So, I figured I would help a brother out and get him to the restaurant. Otherwise, corn use to be grown successfully with out herbicides and pesticides using sustainable farming techniques vs. mega mono crop method. I understand fully how much corn is grown in this country and worldwide but it still isn’t the best case scenario in the long term.
It depends on how you define “successfully”. I think sustainability in the big picture isn’t just what is happening on a single plot of land. If yields are low, more acres need to be used to produce the same amount of food, which isn’t very sustainable at all. Some people solve this by saying human population should be reduced, but few are volunteering to solve that problem.
I generally agree with you that input-intensive monoculture farming is not sustainable, but I think we do need some modern farming methods to allow us to achieve reasonably high yields while reducing the impact on the environment from each individual farm. It doesn’t have to be all or nothing. Not too many people are talking about it, but I’m a big fan of integrated farming which takes the best of organic, biodynamic, conventional, and whatever other types of farming you can think of to develop an overall method of farming that works best for a given area. This includes integrated pest management which first considers biological solutions and prevention, then only considers careful use of the least toxic pesticides as needed. This sort of farming could get us the higher yields but have many of the benefits of organic. The problem is that there’s no incentive for farmers to try to follow these sorts of practices. Some combination of subsidies and labeling is needed, I think, to incentivize it. Of course, all of this is complicated, which seems to be far less interesting to people than simple messages like “no GMO” or “no pesticides”.
Oh and it’s not just corn that we should be considering here. If you look at the Today’s Organic, Yesterday’s Yields post, you’ll see that organic methods don’t match conventional for many crops at all – grains, fruits, or vegetables. Only sweet potatoes, canola, and hay had higher yields under organic methods.
I’ll assume for a moment that you’ve had more than one employer in your lifetime, but have likely stayed in the same, or a similar, field of work. Exactly how far would you compromise yourself to defend a former employer?
Monsanto had to shed jobs like crazy a couple years back due to an approximate billion dollar shortfall in earnings due to failure to predict the glyphosate market – they now make under a billion a year on roundup and the bulk of their money from seeds and traits – if the seed and trait business goes away (as I contend it would if a trait involved was found to actually be harmful), frankly what is left? Let’s keep in mind the current environment in which big business operates – I witnessed first hand the carnage that ensued after Pfizer were hit with a $2Bn judgement against them – government didn’t step in and protect anyone – they had to shed hundreds of jobs and lost their global research HQ – being fortune 500 or having ex-amployees in government is no protection against malfeasiance.
Is it overly litigious to ask that member states of the EU actually abide by the laws of the EU?
I use to spell it correctly but things I use to do changed dramatically when someone pointed out to me that the correct useage was used – notwithstanding that the only person I called the grammer legal system down on was myself for stating contaminated was the wrong word to use due to its overly emotive charge when technically it is not incorrect.
So what you’re saying is you don’t want labelling because what’s the point – we can’t trust the food industry to get it right anyway. Yes?
Anyone playing crank bingo? We’ve got Mercola, the Huffington post now joins the fray – I only need a Jeffrey Smith and a Deepak Chopra for a full house (I’m hoping they come up before Dr Oz as I sneaked a look at Karl’s card and it appears that’s all he has left)
Sure, right after I have my plumber check my prostate and my mailman help me through some psychiatric issues I have.
they will far ahead of the curve will they? How will they this? Is it because they no money have will?
Not according to, oh, any of the historic graphings of yield I’ve seen. Not according to the yield drag that organic practices bring about. You’re pulling this stuff out of the air.
Meaningless phrases 101: Balance with nature. Sounds good, means… nothing. Farming is about making nature do what you want – all manner of farming – being in balance with nature (which to mean anything in terms of ag means no longer doing ag) equates to giving up the ghost and telling 2/3 of the world’s population – “so sorry, you get to die now”
Historically, conspiracy theories have been a feature of the opposition to agro biotech. For a decade, though, these theories had been limited to fairly simple scenarios: corporations control food supply, enslave farmers, and so forth.
This has very recently changed; the conspiracy theories are far more intricate, and involve far more entities. GM crops and conventional farming, according to the new conspiracy theories, now involve everything from health care and Morgellons to population control. The remarkable thing is that so many people believe the new stuff.
One question is: are the believers actually opponents of biotech, or are they educable instead? Another question: has something changed in the cultural background that makes wild allegations more believable than in times past, or more likely to concoct them in the current environment?
@all,
It is too bad that we can’t harvest a comment stream like this and feed it to poor people. Its too bad that all the human and electrical energy that has been used couldn’t be diverted to fix nitrogen for fertilization. I would like to thank everyone for their contribution(s). I also appreciate the civilized tone in spite of the fact that we obviously represent some radically different world-views
Steve
I’m with Joanne, and Joanne, if it makes you feel better I actually have a Master’s Degree in Biology, and studied genetics as part of my undergrad degree. I still think I deserve to know what products contain GMOs, until then I’ll definitely be avoiding foods that are likely to. As a scientist I can’t help noticing my body reacting to foods differently over the past several years; it’s occured to me that it is the food that is changing. How you other scientists can not respect Joanne’s point of view, or be concerned about the potential health impacts for yourselves and your families astounds me and makes me worried for the future. I guess Monsanto must pay really well. Joanne, you should be proud of yourself for speaking your mind, keep up the good work.
“As a scientist I can’t help noticing my body reacting to foods differently over the past several years; it’s occured to me that it is the food that is changing.”
I’ll accept your observation that your “body” has been “reacting to foods differently over the past several years,” but it occurs to me if you were truly scientific in your thinking you would first realize that correlation does not equal causation, and that anecdotes are not data.
I know this, and my degree is in English!
Bully for you MikeB you are obviously a “genius”! I never said I’m out to publish my “findings” in an issue of “nature”. I just know that eating “tortilla chips” never used to make my fingers swell up and itch like “crazy”. I know someone else who has developed severe corn allergies and I’m suspicious of GMOs is all. If GMOs were labelled I suppose I could conduct some scientific experiments where I ate GMO and nonGMO tortilla chips while keeping the other variables constant to test my theory, but wait, GMOs aren’t labelled, so I’ll just avoid suspicious foods altogether. in the absence of sound, long term experiments by independant agencies on health effects of GMOs on humans anecodates are all I have to go on and I chose to be cautious. other people are free to consume all the GMOs they want. I found this website because I was looking for more information on GMOs from all points of view and I only posted because I didn’t like reading the posts bullying Joanne for likewise being concerned about health impacts. sorry my wording wasn’t perfect and thank you for reminding me what science is all about, you’re the best.
If you were a scientist, or at least if you acted like one, you’d go to the literature and note the abundance of studies demonstrating no adverse effects of GMOs in the diet (many of them… independant), you’d likely then accept that your reactions to corn products (when did they arise by the by?) have absolutely nothing to do with the presence of GMOs.
It appears however, at least from the previous two posts that you’ve done nothing of the sort.
Not all points of view deserve respect – I absolutely respect Joanne’s right to a point of view – but that doesn’t mean that if I disagree with it I’m just going to keep my mouth closed (one would wonder, infact, why you don’t respect our point of view? Coming here bullying us with your allegations of unsaf… oh wait, I see, that’s jsut a tactic to get people to shut up when you don’t like what they’re saying! Sneaky!)
There are no demonstrable impacts, there is no sound reason to believe there will be, all the evidence points to equivalence with non-GMO varieties – I try not to get overly concerned for the safety of my family from non-issues, given that there are plenty of things to actually be concerned about.
To follow up on what Karl mentions – sudden reactions to new foods can indeed be indicative of other issues – Shortly after turning 30 my Britishness was violently torn from me by an autoimmune disorder which includes amongst its many interesting pieces a rather unpleasant reaction to tea (at least it appears to – I’m 3 for 3 on trying tea and ending up off work the next day, so I’m happy to eliminate the tea – not exactly conclusive but good enough for me) – do I go and rail about tea? No, because it ain’t the tea – it’s my immune system being a lunatic.
As far as I’m aware I’m the only one in the discussion paid by Monsanto, it pays the bills no doubt, but alas the PR folk are yet to acknowledge my excellence with a yearly stipend or a gold plaque somewhere. I’ve made every effort to remediate this but apparently it falls on deaf ears. I’m presuming it is some sort of corporate conspiracy to keep me driving a 2001 Alero with intermittent air conditioning and a penchant for flat tires.
Susan, As a scientist, you know that you are unable to separate the variables of changes in food from the variables involved in how the food is prepared, quantities eaten, and changes in your own physiology and lifestyle. So you don’t have any information that can separate these variables. At the very least, you should observe how your body reacts to different foods in a controlled, double-blind manner. Switching between GE and non-GE foods where you don’t know which is which is the only way you can keep from fooling yourself on this. Take a look at my post on this topic called The Inadequacy of Anecdotes. If you are, as you suggest may be the case, reacting to GE foods, it is your duty to investigate this if you think there is serious merit to it – for the safety of others.
In addition, there are varietal differences between different corn plants, tomatoes, etc, that would make a simple comparison of GE vs non-GE food in the store unable to give you the information you seek. If you are concerned that GE crops are making you feel uncomfortable or harming you, you would need to use varieties that are genetically similar or identical in your analysis. This has been done in test animals with differences far less than the differences caused by feeding different varieties. There is a large body of research on this stuff.
As you have a master’s degree in biology, you should have the necessary skills to figure this sort of thing out. You could do one of two things, either design an experiment that takes into account all these variables and verify or rule out the role of GE in these potential reactions, or, using your education in the sciences, read the relevant literature linked above and understand how unlikely this scenario is. Both are avenues that educated scientists can take. Right now you only have a hypothesis.
You are not the only person that I have come across who has suggested that food reactions they are having may be due to GE foods. (Some say they know it is due to GE foods.) But given that the changes being made in these foods are far less than basic varietal differences, it makes alternate explanations far more likely. If you have been indeed reacting to foods more and more in the last few years, you owe it to yourself to figure out what is causing it. There could be an underlying medical condition that is being overlooked. And that could be dangerous.
My understanding is that GM food is considered safe because biotech companies have insisted that the toxins that break open insect stomachs are broken down via the human digestive system and therefore will not affect us. A recent study published in Reproductive Toxicology (“Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada”) shows that these toxins in fact are appearing both in our blood stream and in the cord blood of developing babies, showing that they are passing through the placenta.
Until further studies show that these toxins (which were never supposed to be absorbed into our systems in the first place) have no affect on us, it seems premature to deem Bt crops as “safe.”
The logic would imply that if it is dangerous to consume pesticides, and these Bt crops are genetically engineered to embody pesticides, and these Bt toxins are finding their way into our blood, it isn’t safe to eat these crops. Is this a case of common sense not being too common?
Furthermore, there are a number from the scientific community who believe the testing upon which approval for GM crops has been granted is insufficient to label them “safe.” Please see the study “Genetically modified crops safety assessments: present limits and possible improvements”.
That is part of it, however another part is the well characterized mode of action of the Cry protein which is very specific to the target classes of insects that it affects – pH and target specificity being key – humans don’t have alkaline guts (or blood afaik) and don’t have the target molecule upon which the activated Cry protein acts.
David Tribe covers the maternal and fetal exposure here (mostly copied from another, but well referenced and researched on top of that)
Why do we need further studies when we have prior studies showing exactly that – erroneous studies pointing out that a protein appears in the blood do not negate the prior work which illustrates that consumption of the protein has no effects whatsoever on test subjects (indeed prior utilization of the Cry proteins in agriculture even before the advent of GMOs would indicate that they have no effect)
That would only be the case if it were dangerous to consume all pesticides. It isn’t. Notwithstanding the dose effect of most pesticides (ie they may be dangerous at some dose, but in tiny quantities have no effect) many pesticides (particularly Bt and Glyphosate) have no effect thus negating the pivotal point of your otherwise logical statement.
Likewise there are those in the scientific community who believe vaccinations cause autism or that the earth is 6,000 years old. Just because one can label folk with demonstrably crazy beliefs to be scientists doesn’t mean these beliefs need to be taken seriously.
Ewan, I’m guessing you didn’t actually read the “Genetically modified crops safety assessments: present limits and possible improvement.” It has been peer-reviewed and therefore probably warrants a little credit. If you know of a peer-reviewed study indicating the earth is 6,000 years old, I have some “young earth” friends who would love to see it.
Note that I’m not saying GMOs are unsafe — I’m just not convinced yet that they are.
The study points out the genetic modification unintentionally affect other areas of the genome:
Usually, pesticides are tested over a period of 2 years on a mammal, and this quite often highlights side effects. Additionally, unintended effects of the genetic modification itself cannot be excluded, as direct or indirect consequences of insertional mutagenesis, creating possible unintended metabolic effects. For instance, in the MON810 maize, the insertion of the transgene in the ubiquitine ligase gene caused a complex recombination event, leading to the synthesis of new RNA products encoding unknown proteins [12]. Thus, genetic modifications can induce global changes in the genomic, transcriptomic, proteomic, or metabolomic profiles of the host. The frequency of such events in comparison to classical hybridization is by nature unpredictable. In addition, in a plant producing a Cry1Ab-modified toxin, a metabolomic study [13] revealed that the transgene introduced indirectly 50% changes in osmolytes and branched amino acids.
If studies are available that speak to the concerns raised in the study, I’d be interested in seeing them. From what I’ve seen thus far, there doesn’t seem to be sufficient data to make a solid conclusion one way or the other.
I have, it is by Seralini, he’s a nonsense merchant – the peer reviewed literature is unfortunately not immune to allowing utter twaddle in from time to time (Wakefield for instance). In Seralini’s case an established pattern of publishing nonsense is quite evident.
On to the study mentioned which one can find here
If I’m doing the stats right not one of the PCA graphs shown demonstrates a difference between the control and the transgenic given that all points invariably fall within the hotelling T^2 confidence limit of 95% – which, if I’m thinking correctly (and PCA is not my strong suit, so I may not be!) is the area in which one cannot rule out the null hypothesis of no difference between groups. (hopefully PDiff can step in and illuminate us here) – furthermore it looks to me like the metabolites looked at extend over 499 different products (or peaks at least) which would mean you’d expect, at a 95% confidence level, to see at least 20 significant differences – seeing a handful (as they appear to) is hardly meaningful other than to add to the noise (which is funny as it is this precise form of statistical dishonesty which got Seralini where he is today)
Here’s other stuff about the same topic. Let’s talk about these to to get the whole picture and assess what Seralini does with this evidence. This evidence all basically says there’s a lot of variation in plant composition coming from conventional breeding and seasonal variations that’s much greater than what transgenes cause. Variation as such is not necessarily dangerous– we get a lot of it in our food.
An up to date review in a good journal described here:
Fingerprinting of the fine detail in plant composition indicates trangenesis has less impact on crop composition than has conventional breeding and environmental influences
Other reviews about unexpected changes
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2008/07/gene-chips-prove-transgenes-are-clean.html
Relevant papers:
Barros, E 2010, ‘Molecular Profiling Techniques Detect Unintended Effects in Genetically Engineered Maize’, Information Systems for Biotechnology News Report.
Carmen, S 2008, ‘Agrifood Metabolomics – A Link Between Analytical Biochemistry and Green Biotechnologies’, Bulletin of University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 410-5.
Coll, A, Nadal, A, Collado, R, Capellades, G, Messeguer, J, Mele, E, Palaudelmas, M & Pla, M 2009, ‘Gene expression profiles of MON810 and comparable non-GM maize varieties cultured in the field are more similar than are those of conventional lines’, Transgenic Research, vol. 18, pp. 801-8.
Davies, H 2010, ‘A role for ‘‘omics” technologies in food safety assessment’, Food Control, vol. 21, pp. 1601-10.
Davies, HV, Shepherd, LVT, Stewart, D, Frank, T, Röhlig, RM & Engel, K-H 2010, ‘Metabolome variability in crop plant species – When, where, how much and so what?’, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, vol. 58, pp. S54-S61.
EFSA GMO Panel Working Group on Animal Feeding Trials 2008, Safety and nutritional assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed: The role of animal feeding trials, European Food Safety Authority.
Harrigan, GG, Lundry, D, Drury, S, Berman, K, Riordan, SG, Nemeth, MA, Ridley, WP & Glenn, KC 2010, ‘Natural variation in crop composition and the impact of transgenesis’, Nature Biotechnology, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 402-4.
Hilder, VA & Boulter, D 1999, ‘Genetic engineering of crop plants for insect resistance – a critical review’, Crop Protection, vol. 18, pp. 177-91.
Knibb, W 1997, ‘Risk from genetically engineered and modified marine fish’, Transgenic Research, vol. 6, pp. 59-67.
Mittler, R & Blumwald, E 2010, ‘Genetic Engineering for Modern Agriculture: Challenges and Perspectives’, Annual Review of Plant Biology, vol. 61, pp. 443-62.
Qaim, M 2009, ‘The Economics of Genetically Modified Crops’, Annual Review of Resource Economics, vol. 1, pp. 665-93.
Ricroch, A, Berge, JB & Kuntz, M 2010, ‘Is the German suspension of MON810 maize cultivation scientifically justified?’, Transgenic Research, vol. 19, pp. 1-12.
Ringnér, M 2008, ‘What is principal component analysis?’, Nature Biotechnology, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 303-4.
Rischer, H & Oksman-Caldentey, K-M 2006, ‘Unintended effects in genetically modified crops: revealed by metabolomics?’, TRENDS in Biotechnology, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 102-4.
You’ll have to explain yourself Adrian. We expect something better than vague insults here. Your use of the lackeys suggest that you are intellectually challenged by the topic.
The largest problem I have with GMOs is that people really don’t have a choice. People on here have said that if you don’t want to eat them you don’t have to. Well buying organic or non gmo costs money. We are in a recession. Unemployment is through the roof. People have to eat what they can afford. What that makes this into is a long term public health experment on the segment of the population that can’t afford the choice.
The other thing that upsets me is the fact that because of polenation it is becoming more and more difficult to grow or raise corn that is not GM. In 100 years there will be no such thing as non GM corn. The cat is out of the bag. The problem is there is no undo button. If we discover major problems because of GM corn sometime down the road it is too late. A realitivly small group of people decided that this was the way to go and gave the world no long term choice or escape plan. I don’t like any situation where a small group of elite people dictate everyone elses choices because they are so much smarter and have forseen all possible outcomes…
Justin,
If you are eating GMO foods, it is mostly in “manufactured” foods as opposed to whole foods. Get your protein from beans. Get your starch from wheat. Get your fruits and vegetables. None of these involve GMO crops.
People have been managing corn genetics since the 1920s when hybrid corn first appeared. No farmer has been saving corn seed since then and the farmers who grow the seed crop know how much isolation they need to be able to get the cross they desire with the male and female lines they plant in the seed crop field.
There are lots of areas where a “small group of elite people” dictate everyone’s choices. Do you get involved in your water supply, your trash management, your road building, your electricity grid? I could go on and on. We specialize and we are all the “elite” about something. It works
I have read a good bit on GM soy causing high rates of sterility in multi generation animal studies. I have also read that sterility is becoming a problem for American livestock farmers. I was hoping someone on here could integently discuss this topic.
You’ve read a good bit of nonsense. If you can point us to the studies then I’m sure we can intelligently (although perhaps belligerently aswell, the two aren’t mutually exclusive, and beligerence normally arises when ridiculous claims are being recycled for the umpteenth time) tell you precisely what the issues are.
As does buying kosher or buying halal.
Labelling GMO simply means that it will now cost more to buy things that aren’t GMO and are GMO but aren’t produced as specialty items to be so (as the whole food system will have to bear the cost of splitting the stream of commodity grains and providing evidence that their labelling, or lack thereof, is correct) – as Steve points out above – protein from beans, starch from wheat, fruits and vegetables as normal – just avoid pre-packaged mass produced foods (which I’m sure, if you’re so concerned about health, that you do anyway right?)
Arguably a pro-GM comment.
Unless you are even half way competent as a farmer or small scale grower.
I don’t understand this practice of keeping cats in bags – you ever seen a cat in a bag? Damn thing goes beserk. Best place for cats is outside of bags.
Not to pull the GM corn, not even close. Although again you appear to be living in a world where plant breeders and seed manufacturers are dribbling imbeciles who spend so much of the day struggling to tie their shoe laces that very little in the way of work ever gets.
Steve,
I personaly filter my water. I am protesting a local road that is being built. I don’t take any action about my power grid (although the people in Japan wish they had)
As far as managing corn goes this is an interesting read.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_20568.cfm
My biggest issue with GMOs and companies like Monsanto is that they’re taking away the rights of the farmer. They patent life and when genetically-modified seed naturally gets into a non-GMO field, the farmer gets sued! It doesn’t matter how it got there. So farmers’ rights are being taken away and consumers rights to make knowledgeable decisions regarding what we buy are off the table.
Not only does this GMO seed destroy the livelihoods of farmers, but the entire idea of industrial agriculture is destroying the biodiversity of the planet. Other countries realize this threat of GMOs and other industrial agriculture practices, so they are standing up and fighting against GMOs and Monsanto when Americans are oblivious or simply don’t care.
THAT is the problem.
Did you check your facts on this? I question the assumptions here. In Australia Monsanto has made it clear they don’t sue for accidental presence. In the famous Schmeisser case, Percy deliberately tried to use GM crop for his own breeding, as shown by court documents.
As far as biodiversity there are several ways biotech seeds help preserve biodiversity. Do you know Jen what they are? If you don’t, maybe you should start doing wider research?
Monsanto against farmers: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/26/eveningnews/main4048288.shtml
Industrialized farming effects on biodiversity (PDF File): http://www.landinstitute.org/vnews/display.v/ART/2002/08/23/439bd36c9acf1
You’re right, so-called “industrial farming” has had a negative impact on biodiversity. This is something we’ve talked about in many posts here at Biofortified. There’s been a narrowing of the number of species of crops that are planted and a narrowing of the number of varieties planted within each species. In addition, some methods used in farming decrease biodiversity on farms by killing not just pests but all insects and non-crop plants. However, this is a problem of farming, not of genetic engineering.
In fact, genetic engineering can be used to help improve biodiversity on farm. For example, Bt crops reduce the amount of insecticide that needs to be sprayed while still maintaining high yields. This allows non-target insects to thrive and allows more food/fiber/fuel to be produced on a given amount of land. Up and coming genetically engineered traits like disease resistance will also help improve biodiversity.
The important thing to remember is that genetic engineering is just a tool. You can use a screwdriver to make a hybrid car and you can use a screwdriver to make a gas guzzler car. It’s the use of tool that determines the end result, not the tool itself.
Also, I think it’s important to note that Monsanto does not equal genetic engineering. I agree that Monsanto, like many other large companies, has some business practices that are questionable if not outright wrong. Happily, genetic engineering is not held by a monopoly. There are other companies as well as government researchers and non-profit organizations working on genetically engineering traits as well. You can find an incomplete list of traits here: https://biofortified.org/resources/biotech-traits/ (we really have a lot of work to do in filling in more traits) and an incomplete list of companies here: https://biofortified.org/resources/genetic-engineering-companies/.
Hi Jen, thanks for stopping by. According to Monsanto, they do not sue for accidental pollination. The high-profile case of Percy Schmeiser getting sued was actually a case where he illegally obtained and saved seed, and testified that he sprayed roundup on the plants to select for them. As a result, more than 95% of the fields were GE canola. He didn’t pay damages, but was found guilty by the Canadian Supreme Court. Other cases are similar. It would make no sense to sue over a few out-of-place GE plants, and so far I haven’t seen a case where they have. This doesn’t come as much of a consolation to those who are worried about such cross-pollination, and there is a group suing over that. But I don’t think they will get very far because they are suing on the basis that the patents aren’t valid, and the Supreme Court of the United States has already ruled that they are valid. Perhaps the best way to solve this issue would be to draft some legislation that all sides can for-the-most-part agree on that defines how to deal with issues of cross-pollination. What makes sense to me is making companies unable to sue over low-level-presence (from accidental pollination or admixture) while at the same time making farmers who have low-level presence unable to sue for “contamination.” I doubt we would get much support from either side for such a measure right now, but I wonder if it would be possible.
If GMO is just like normal food then why is Monsanto so hungry to have it grow? I hate the biotech industry because of Monsanto.
The food I put in my body will be Organic and nothing but Organic!
Monsanto wants 100% control of all seed, I say kill Monsanto and everyone in the biotech distroy. GOD lift us all we need to eat and stay healthy, he will come distroy companies like Monsanto.
Editor’s Note: For advocating violence on the blog, Tex is banned from further commenting.
The question doesn’t follow from the premise. Please explain your thinking (the rest of the post sort of suggests that your capacity to do this may be limited, but I live in hope)
A well reasoned arguement, you almost have me swayed.
That explains why they license their traits giving up control… oh wait, no, it does nothing of the sort.
How very civilized of you.
I won’t hold my breath.
Tex,
You are free to eat the Organic, its your money. But seriously, I’d try to limit that to the US, Canadian, Mexican Organic and not the Chinese Organic. I could introduce you to some of the great people who work at Monsanto and then you might become less murderous
Bullsh*t. One of my beekeeper buddies has a field of genetically engineered corn right near her hive. She asked this farmer to plant good ol regular corn but this guy does not read. He did not read, did not listen and now the bees are suffering for it. Genetically engineered corn, soy and canola is planted everywhere. Once it is there, well, that’s it folks. We have unleashed into nature what nature has always protected against, the contamination of genes from other species. Nature is an order which arrogant people like the people at monsanto think they can control and alter to the point of causing our extinction. We are not a laboratory experiment! The world depends on all biodiversity to work together and not to be mashed together in some freaky science experiment.I will go with the natural order. Monsanto has caused nothing but death and destruction and has lied and covered up about it. Sustainable? Hardly. Generally Regarded As Safe? GRAS MY *SS. This is unnecessary behavior that we do not need in our world. Don’t need it. Dont want it. Listen to the people. WE DO NOT WANT GENETIC ENGINEERING IN OUR ENVIROMENT>
Maria, let me see if I understand your friend’s objection, she is objecting because her bees are flying into her neighbor’s field and stealing pollen off of his plants?
Ok
That or he wants to exercise his right to plant what he chooses on his own land – would your beekeeper buddy have got rid of her bees if the farmer had stated he was scared of bees, because they kill corn?
Is it sad or funny that I can’t help hearing porky the pig stuttering that little phrase?
Bees! No wait… erm, I’m sure you had a point… but I’m pretty sure it can’t be about gene transfer between species as this isn’t something nature protects against… (indeed if it were then we wouldn’t be able to do it as all we do is use mechanisms which are perfectly natural (restriction enzymes, taq DNA polymerase, bacterial recombination) to copy what nature does anyway.
What does this even mean?
I’ll ask around, but as far as I know nobody I work with spends much time thinking about altering nature to cause our extinction… it probably wouldn’t look good on a goals document what with the impact on profitability from a reduced customer base.
Sure, nothing but, they haven’t been remotely involved in breeding higher yielding crops, they haven’t done a thing to improve the lives of farmers in the past decade or so, their flagship traits have certainly not reduced the environmental impact of herbicide use on soy and corn, and they certainly haven’t decreased the economic impact of insect pests on the US corn crop (to the extent that nature didn’t publish an analysis of the economics and utterly didn’t conclude massive benefits to adopters and non adopters alike)
Recognized, not regarded – if you’re going to go off on an ill informed rant you could at least take the trouble to be accurate in the nomenclature of the subject you’re vastly uninformed about.
The people who it has an effect on are listened to. Farmers. They want it. They use it. They want more, they want better traits. You are perfectly entitled to rant and rave and froth at the mouth about it – but try not to ignore the massive positive benefits the technology has for the people who actually use it – I’d ask you not ignore the reality that there really isn’t a negative impact on end users such as yourself – but I’ll accept that based on the above rant you’re unlikely to be able to take that step.
Maria,
Corn is not pollinated by bees. The bees might forage on the pollen from the corn, but the Bt toxin there has no effect on bees, just caterpillars
You might want to look into what GRAS actually means. When referring to genetically engineered crops, the term isn’t GRAS anyway, it’s substantial equivalence. Genetically engineered crops have to be proven to be the same as non-genetically engineered crops, they are not assumed to be the same. See https://biofortified.org/2010/10/substantial-equivalence/
Potatoes. See “The World According to Monsanto” a documentary by french filmmaker Marie-Monique Robin. http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Arpad-Pusztai-Potato.htm.
2.NOt costly. Tell that to the indian farmers who were forced to buy this seed, plant it, have it fail, lose their farms then commit suicide. The myth that these crops need less water, less pesticide & herbicide is just that. A myth.
3.Not interested. Not necessary. Talk to the farmers in Chile who have lost their livelihoods to the big mono crop farming that is going on there. This is about MONEY. Arrogance and how can we screw nature. Nature is perfect the way it is. What we need to do is stop spraying toxic pest/herbicides that kill the soil and pollute our water. Killing native pollinators and creating super weeds that we then spray with other more potent chemicals. Do not kid yourself. This is about creating a system that relies on the destruction of the ecosystem. Neat mono crops, miles of corn, canola and soy. This is not sustainable agriculture. Talk to the organic farmers who this system is trying to destroy. They do all this wby working with the enviroment not against it. We need to concentrate our technologies on this, not bending the genetic code of plants. This could fail horribly, we do not know the effects, one day all crops would bee struck with a bacteria resistant malady and no food for anyone. I do not beleive this is the way. No one should. Many scientists know this. When they try to tell the world they are silenced or discredited by the biotech INDUSTRY. I am putting my money on organics. I do not want to gamble our food supply This is too important.
4.WE do not KNOW The effects and these people should stop saying this is SAFE. It most definitely is not safe, (scientist studies see Dr. Huber, Dr. Putszai) and also not as effective as organic agriculture. (See UN article)http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=34331. I support organic “technology” as we should also do for our energy needs. Only when humankind can start working with our world, not against it, will we have world peace and a better world.
See a horribly slanted propaganda piece about a badly done bit of research? (I actually do mean to watch the film sometime, but given that it takes me approximately 6 months to beat a video game these days my priorities have shifted away from meaninglessly wasting my life on fluff)
The myth about Indian farmers here is that the GM seed had anything to do with suicide. Suicide rates were relatively unaltered by the introduction of GM crops (infact in one region they appear to decline following the introduction, which makes sense, but I fear is likely just happenstance as it occurs only in a single region) – the issue here is the relative uncertainty of farming combined with the predatory loan systems utilized to finance farming – if you bother to do the math (I’m certain you won’t, nobody ever does and reaches the conclusions you’ve come to) you’d be quick to note that the cost of GM seed amounts to an approximate 3% of the overall cost of production for your average cotton farmer – to assert that this 3% change in end season debt would be the tipping point on the decision to take ones life is not sound – however, and here’s the real kicker for your imaginary scenario – GM cotton has demonstrably improved yields for Indian farmers in the 50-150% increase range, reduced use of the most toxic insecticides, and increased on farm income (and shifted labour from spraying toxins to picking cotton) – how else can one explain the concurrent massive increase in Indian cotton production and massively high rate of adoption of GM crops – if they failed the way you claim then surely as adoption rates reach close to 100% Indian cotton production should tank horribly. It doesn’t. Your conclusions are unsound.
That explains polio. That explains Crohn’s disease. That explains why not one of us has any need whatsoever for any of agriculture – we can all just scavenge berries and hunt wildebeest (or rabbits).
Yet another myth – if Organic farmers worked with, rather than against the environment their farms would be overrun with weeds in the first few years of production and covered in trees after a decade or two – farming is working against the environment whether you’re working 50,000 acres with agrichemicals, or half an acre with nothing but sweat, blood and tears.
Which is it? We don’t know or we definitely know. Seems you are somewhat confused here. (either way you’re wrong – we know that current commercialized GMOs are safe, in so far as we know that anything is safe).
The dark ages. A time of organic type agriculture and no chemical inputs. Clearly a better and more peaceful world.
We discussed Pusztai here in detail: https://biofortified.org/2011/01/health-effects-of-ge/
Monsanto bought out 80 percent of the seed companies in the USA. What are they setting up? For those of you who wish to avoid “gmos” here is some good info. For the rest of you, have fun eating those biotech, roundup ready “foods”. You know, the sad thing is, this is really simple. So simple. Why is there so much “ansgt” as mr savage stated at the beginning of the article? Not because we sense something is wrong with this technology. Could it bee that this technology does something to alter the structure of the gene and renders the plant itself somehow, say, unstable? Could it bee that scientists that are much much smarter than me know that we should not be tampering with this and be approaching this by the precautionary principle? What has happened here? The Dark Ages? Hardly. PUtting Monsanto in charge of agriculture is like having Charles Manson babysit my kids.
http://www.garden-of-eatin.com/how-to-avoid-monsanto/
Rural Online – 16/06/2011: New plant disease linked to GM crops and pesticides
http://www.abc.net.au
From a biogeneticist in India. Oh and by the way, Vandana Shiva sends her regards.
80% sounds a rather high figure – Monsanto buys seed companies because it makes sense to acquire known brands and established expertise in an area rather than starting from scratch (which explains delta pine, dekalb and other acquisitions) – what is being set up? A profitable seed company which can transfer expertise across crops in a manner that wasn’t possible when the various crops were run by different companies. What exactly are you suggesting is going on? You do rather leave us hanging and expect us to fill in the gap.
What exactly do you mean by this? Which gene? Unstable how?
If that’s what they think I assure you you’re doing yourself a grand disservice by assume they’re much smarter than you.
Assuming that Monsanto is “in charge of Agriculture” is rather akin to thinking that the suppliers of tires to GM are in charge of the automobile.
http://livingmaxwell.com/obama-appointment-of-siddiqui-to-agricultural-post-is-an-absolute-disaster-for-organic-food-proponents
Tom Vilsack as well. Lisa Jackson, the list goes on , I am speaking of the revolving door in political washington where the deregulation is taking place.
Honestly, have you watched the thoughtful documentary by ms robin?Many thing are explained that I could never in my limited way explain. Please watch it then get back to me! It’s exciting, it’s entertaining it’s simply a must see. Perhaps you can then shed some light on what is wrong with this whole picture. I want to feed the world in a sustainalble way. I want to use less toxins on the crops and in the soil. Are we on the same side? It seems so, but then something gets in the way. It is not my ignorance, I am reading and studying this voraciously, it is a simple miscalculation by science called “what if”? and really the most important, why is this necessary? I am not convinced. Why when organic yeilds are proven to outperform biotech. The myths of biotechnology are being proven, are you reading about it or are you jsut sitting in your chair looking down at the “angst” that is prohibiting the progress of “fortifying” agriculture?The WORLd according to Monsanto”. Yes, there are othere companies out there, but Monsanto is the leader.
People who work in agriculture get other jobs in agriculture. Colour me surprised. I’ll assume for a moment you’ve had more than one job, tell me, how dishonest and essentially criminal are you willing to be to benefit your former employer?
As stated, no, I haven’t (I’m guessing some of the writers here may have) – however from hearing about it what is covered is the same tired old nonsense – it isn’t thoughtful, it’s puerile and dishonest.
So you’re pro GM? I’m confused.
Although it appears your pre-filter for material is abysmal. I assume you are simply throwing out anything that disagrees with your pre-conceived world view.
They aren’t. Steve recently had a piece on organic vs conventional yields – Organic is decades behind and the gap is increasing.
Which ones?
Essentially everyone who participates in the conversation at Biofortified has spent more time reading and thinking about the issue than you I would bet. I personally work in the industry – so not a day goes by when I’m not reading or thinking about some aspect of agriculture (well ok, maybe the odd day here and there spent screaming at sequencing data when stupid TA repeats end up looping off and messing up my sequence…) – I’m sure others can vouch for their time investment.
If I remember my numbers right (I rarely do) Pioneer is the leader in at least a couple of seed markets – Monsanto is the leader in biotech simply because they hands down invest more money in R&D than the competition – and have done so for the longest – to argue that any seed company is the leader of modern Ag is however ignorant of the scale of modern ag – seed companies income pales in comparison with practically anyone downstream of them (other than, unfortunately, the farmer) – as I stated previously, somewhat like accusing a tire manufacturer supplying to GM of being the commanding force in the automobile industry.
I think the 80% is how much of the domestic GMO seed market that Monsanto holds. I seem to remember reading that, but I can’t remember where.
Monsanto has an approximate 30% (give or take a percent point) of the seed market in most of the major seeds they sell – generally around the same sort of portion as Pioneer has (I don’t remember the most recent numbers – I do wish, for the sake of my annual bonus, that it had jumped to 80% this year) (buying 80% of seed companies wouldn’t necessarily result in getting 80% share – if Monsanto purchased Pioneer they’d buy a single company and get +30% market share, whereas they could buy Bobs Seed in Arkansas and increase their market share by all of a bag of seed.
Thanks for the clarification.
I apologize, the link is this one!
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/content/2011/s3245624.htm
Huber’s claims are thus far unsupported by any evidence (go figure!) and are contained amidst even more outlandish nonsense about the existence of impossible organisms (fungi visible only under the electron microscope and virulent across kingdoms)
It is however interesting that you acknowledge Huber while ignorning the link in your article which essentially says that Huber is spouting nonsense (although somewhat more politely than that)
The claims of Dr. Huber have been examined in detail elsewhere on this site and found to be seriously lacking.
They are these posts
The research, which is yet to be completed, suggests the pathogen could be the cause of recent widespread crop failure and miscarriages in livestock.
Emeritus Professor Don Huber from Perdue University says his research shows that animals fed on GM corn or soybeans may suffer serious health problems due to the pathogen.
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/content/2011/s3245624.htm
https://biofortified.org/2011/02/extraordinary-claims/
https://biofortified.org/2011/02/purdue-extension-comments-on-recent-glyphosate-stories/
http://www.gmwatch.org/component/content/article/31-need-gm/12348-introduction
An interesting aside to this discussion.
It’s not really that interesting – GM traits would obviously be useless if not in elite germplasm – the benefit of better weed control, or better insect control, is meaningless if you get that control when sacrificing a good chunk of yield (yield drag in the first gen RR soybean show conclusively that there is a level of yield tradeoff that is worth it however)
The whole piece is a non-arguement, visitive soybeans were made RR because the majority of the soybean market demands RR beans – not to make it look like vistive soy was GMO (indeed that’s what vistive gold is for…) Flood resistant rice was done with GM first – thankfully after regulatory hurdles proved too great a wild variety of rice with a version of the gene that’d do the same thing was found and introgressed into rice – at extra expense of both money and time – yay regularory burdens.
The piece also makes the erroneous claim that proponents of GM say that only GM tech can do these things – nobody makes any such claim.
This piece particularly is rather funny:-
Precisely the amount the farmer is willing to pay for it – if you have no other agronomic improvement other than insect protection, or herbicide resistance (which is all Bt and RR claim to offer) then the value is whatever you place on these traits – if insects routinely devour 50% of your crop then the value add is approximately 50% the net value of a crop unmolested by insects, if your weed management program sucks up all your time then it depends entirely how you value your time in terms of value add of the RR trait.
Obviously these traits provide some form of value – how else can one explain uptake of the more expensive seed in a market where despite claims to the contrary non-GM seed is available (although less today than in previous years purely because the demand is so low… supply and demand… how does that work?)
BTW whoever posted as “Tex” I get really tired of false flag postings in blogs, media and the like to make the people who disagree with you sound like blathering idiots.
I can give him your email address and ask him to contact you if you like, so you can verify who he is if he agrees to contact you. That’s about the best we can do to set your mind at rest. I agree he’s saying idiot things
Whoever “Tex” really is, either way they crossed the line in my opinion. I have logged their IP address and email address, and banned both from making further comments.
If a farmer used roundup on his crops for ten years straight and then decided to go non GMO how long would he have to wait before his land would grow anything that was not roundup ready?
Justin,
The farmer could plant any non-roundup-ready crop within three days of the last roundup spray. Roundup has an extremely short half-life in soil. Some of the soybean herbicides that roundup-ready displaced had rotational limitations, but not roundup.
There is a positive roll for the more persistent herbicides to manage resistance and because if the crop “sees” weeds growing nearby, it responds by increasing the shoot to root ratio, and that can make it more susceptible to drought
@Steve, Ewan and Karl,
Regarding the hysteria regarding GMO and GE foods, do you feel people are being illogical due to their reasons for not wanting to eat GMO/GE food, or is the preference of preferring non-GMO/GE foods the irrational portion?
I’d guess it was more about fear of GMO foods because they don’t understand how much they are like the un-modified food. When a positive choice is made for a food, it is generally about the flavor or other positives about the consumption experience. When a negative choice is made it is usually about fear
That makes sense. So you would agree that the preference to eat foods that are non-GMO is perfectly reasonable; where you take issue is with the justification for the preference. Is that accurate?
I’ll step in here, if you don’t mind. I’m a vegetarian, and I hope others support my right to make that choice. I fully recognize that my choice isn’t completely based on science. I don’t think I have a right to make other people pay more for meat or take away other people’s choices. I have a HUGE problem with extremist groups that want to force everyone else to be vegan.
I find the GMO discussion to be quite similar. Some people have made a choice to avoid something (GM). Fine. They may have non-science based reasons for it. Fine. Destroying research? Demanding increases in food costs for everyone else through mandatory labeling? Preventing farmers from using the technologies that work best for them? Not fine.
Alex – I’d say that both the reasons and the preference are illogical (given that I’d have to assume that the preference is based on the reasons – although I guess to some extent that makes the preference logical but only after the massively illogical step of looking at the available data and concluding that reality is wrong)